The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.128 E Main St.0038.2006.ASLU ,..... r "J ~1 ,~2J 1:0 {,;] III !}J )'1 ,_; .~j '*', if} J;'y<? ij &,M~inlRoytingstatus iFeeS1Ml'lIMI!iSFee.i :~CwtomFjeId$ ::Parcels t~ctiOtU ;'SlilEe<<Ms :_AUachrrlem:Aoub'igJjittory Gl ,> ,..,.,~~,.._~~,,~~_~,.'~.'~~_~__~"~~_~__"'____'_'~'____,"_~""_,~___~,,:_,___,,w,_,_"'_"" _,__,____~_,_'w.,___._,__.,.w,__.. .m",';' ,___o,...,_.www.,'m. ~ j pemitType_.::8II. J." I. III P..miI# jOO38.2006.A5l.U ,,,,,,,, Addreu 10 ZERO jJ AptlSule r fl PeomiI~..;::N St..elCO ..:J ZiPj8l6i1~- , 'if' M....P..ml r ~'i z" Project! ~i D_tiption ICODE INTERPRET A nON APPEAL i I SWliOed iFRANK PETERS 920-2525 . .:iJ FtoulingQueue fatkll6 Statu, lpendino " Appiied jOitl4i2OO6" i .:I Apptoved I,wed ClocklRumno 0.,.. JO FmI E""e, 107/0912007 .J 0_ r.:'":~ -. L&t Name p"""DV HOUSE LLC ,~J Phone !l9701925-G246 r;t OwnelbApplicMt? r'''-'----- r-"'--'''''''''''''''''''' FirslName) 2l))SAPENSl PEN CO B1611 -------- Latt N.... [SAAov HOUSE llC Phone 1(970192&6246 Cust# 200SAPEN ST ASPEN CO 81611 LastNarrre I'hono FintN_1 IIIIIIIII' Re<ordi2Ot4211 Arp-ea.~ W N--hdl/h.W 11\ 0\1\ q /20/00 - . - ',_..,0# MEMORANDUM DATE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council '-..JAA- Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director James Lindt, Senior Planner (JL- Information Item- Sardy House Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation September 25, 2006 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: The owners of the Sardy House have withdrawn (e-mail of withdrawal is attached as Exhibit "A") their request to appeal the land use code interpretation approved by the Community Development Director that was heard by City Council on August 28th and continued to September 25th. Therefore, Staff has removed the item from the September 25th City Council agenda. The owners and Staff have come to an understanding that they can reconfigure some of their interior space in the boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House without the need for a conditional use amendment, as long as they maintain at least ten (10) boardinghouse units as was approved in their original conditional use. Any reduction below ten (10) boardinghouse units would trigger the need for a conditional use amendment. If you have any questions or comments on the resolution to this issue, please contact me. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A"- Letter Withdrawing Appeal Request -1- """ - " Hi James, As you and I discussed this afternoon, we have agreed that we may come in to apply for a building permit to do an interior remodel with plans retaining ten bedrooms in the boardinghouse annex at the Sardy House. Therefore, we are requesting that at this time you remove our Code interpretation appeal from City Council's agenda on September 25th. I can review the remodel floor plans with you at your convenience next week. Also, please let me know about what time City Council wants to tour Hotel Lenado next Tuesday. Thanks, Daniel - - ....." James Lindt From: Sent: To: Subject: Daniel Delano [delano@sardyhouse,com] Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6,01 PM James Lindt Re: Sardy Boardinghouse Remodel/City Council Hi James, As you and I discussed this afternoon, we have agreed that we may come in to apply for a building permit to do an interior remodel with plans retaining ten bedrooms in the boardinghouse annex at the Sardy House. Therefore, we are requesting that at this time you remove our Code interpretation appeal from City Council's agenda on September 25th. I can review the remodel floorplans with you at your convenience next week. Also, please let me know about what time City Council wants to tour Hotel Lenado next Tuesday. Thanks, Daniel > Hi Daniel, > > Please find attached the staff memo for Monday evening's Council > meeting and the interpretation that was issued based on John > Worcester's suggestion at the Council meeting. We took the liberty of > automatically assuming that you would also be appealing this second > interpretation since it would still not allow for the three bedroom > conversion to a common living area without a conditional use amendment review. > > > > However, it did occur to us that we are really disputing one unit. If > you were only requesting to convert 2 of the units to common living > space you would still be within the confines of your conditional use > approval because you would still have 10 units in the boardinghouse > portion of the structure. Would there be any interest on your part in > amending your plan to only convert 2 of the units to the common living > space without the need for a conditional use amendment? If so, we > could probably close the appeal hearing and allow for you to pull a > building permit for the conversion of 2 units. Please let me know > your thoughts on this. > > > > In the case that you still need to convert all 3 of the units we will > need to go ahead with the continued appeal hearing. The item would be > on the action item agenda near the end of the meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > James > > 1 - -. , TO: THRU: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council it p~, WI i-hdvblJ. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ b -e-{6V'e coJ& James Lindt, Senior Planner-TL V1'tC<.vill1. Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation- Land Use Code Section l.S 26.425, Conditional Uses- Continued Public Meetinl! from AUl!ust 28th September 25, 2006 DATE: 15 ~...." cc ,TiC} ~ = ["1,111..1' I' . .......'i....'! iii""'i REQUEST SUMMARY: The Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation on June 29, 2006, and a subsequent supplemental land use code interpretation on July 7, 2006. The interpretations are a response to an interpretation request submitted by Sardy House, LLC, owners of the Sardy House. The Appellants have appealed one provision that was provided in the interpretation dated June 29th that requires the submittal and approval of a land use application for a conditional use amendment to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse rooms in the Sardy House into a living room area for the boardinghouse. APPELLANTS: Sardy House, LLC. STAFF Staff recommends that City Council affirm the Community RECOMMENDATION: Development Director's interpretation. REQUEST SUMMARY: As was briefly described above, Sardy House, LLC (known herein as the "Appellants") have requested an appeal (letter of appeal and letter of justification were attached in the August 28th memorandum) of a provision in a land use code interpretation that was issued by the Community Development Director on June 29, 2006 (reattached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Staff issued a land use code interpretation and a supplemental land use code interpretation (was attached in the August 28th memorandum) in response to some specific questions (code interpretation request is attached as Exhibit "D") posed by the Appellants related to several possible development options for the Sardy House. The one provision that was included in these land use code interpretations that the Appellants are asking for relief from is Staff's response to question No.8 in the interpretation dated June 29, 2006. Staff's response to question No. 8 would require the Appellants to apply for and obtain approval of a conditional use amendment if they wished to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a living room area (was attached in the August 28th memorandum) for the boardinghouse use before applying for a building permit. The Appellants have contended in the letter of appeal that they should not be required to obtain a conditional use amendment and should be able to simply apply for a building permit for the interior changes to the Sardy House that are described above. Therefore, the Appellants have -1- ,-.. - Appellants have contended in the letter of appeal that they should not be required to obtain a conditional use amendment and should be able to simply apply for a building permit for the interior changes to the Sardy House that are described above, Therefore, the Appellants have contended that the Community Development Director has abused his discretion by requiring an amendment to the conditional use approval and requests that City Council reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation related to question No, 8, The letter of appeal has also suggested that Staff has not provided them due process because of the amount of time that elapsed since they first verbally asked if they could simply apply for a building permit to make the aforementioned changes to \he floor plans of the boardinghouse, REVIEW PROCESS: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.316,030(E), Appeal procedures: Standard of review, City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse an interpretation made by the Community Development Director. In order to modify or reverse the interpretation, City Council must make a fmding that there was a denial of due process in issuing the interpretation or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion. The appeal is a public meeting, but is not a public hearing because the appeals section of the code requires that Council's determination be based on the record that was previously established in issuing the interpretation, LAST MEETING: During the last meeting, the Appellants discussed why they believe that Staffs response to Question No, 8 in the original interpretation should be reversed to allow for them to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units into a common living space. Staff then provided our justification for issuing the interpretation that was made, Near the end of City Council's deliberations on the issue, the City Attorney suggested that Staff needed to answer the question of whether the boardinghouse use is a non-conforming use or a conditional use because it is an integral question in determining whether a conditional use amendment is necessary. City Council agreed with the City Attorney and directed Staff to issue a code interpretation to determine whether the Sardy House's boardinghouse use is a non- conforming use or a conditional use, In response to this request, Staff issued the land use code interpretation dated September 18, 2006 that is attached as Exhibit "B", City Council may also affirm, amend, or reverse this interpretation if it is determined that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction, exceeded his discretion, or that there due process was not provided in issuing the interpretation, STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use vs, Non-Conformini!. Use: Staff discussed the question posed by the City Attorney and issued a land use code interpretation that concludes that the Sardy House's boardinghouse use is both a non- conforming use since the boardinghouse use was removed from the zone district and a conditional use since it was originally established through the conditional use process, Therefore, the property would be subject to the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.312, Nonconformities, and Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses, That being the case, Staff believes that the original land use code interpretation issued on June 29th is - 2- "...... " , " valid, Below Staff has again included the discussion that was provided to City Council at the last meeting related to Staffs interpretation that the Appellants need a conditional use amendment review to convert the three (3) boardinghouse units into a common living space, Abuse of Discretion: As was discussed at the last meeting, Land Use Code Section 26.425,010, Conditional Uses: Purpose, describes that conditional uses are those land uses that are compatible with other uses in the zone district in which they are located, but which require review of their location. design. configuration. intensity, and density to ensure their appropriateness, The Sardy House received conditional use approval (1985 staff memorandum and application reattached hereto as Exhibit "C") to construct a carriage house addition to the rear of the historic residence that was to be used for I 0-12 boardinghouse units. Based on the above text of the code, Staff believes that the Appellants' request to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units to a living room space for common use by all ofthe boardinghouse guests is a change in the configuration and intensity of the boardinghouse use on the parcel below the ten to twelve units that was represented in the 1985 application and staff memorandum, Thus, a conditional use amendment would be required for the conversion, The conditional use section goes on to describe the process for amending a development order for a conditional use. There are two amendment options: 1) an insubstantial amendment for which the Community Development Director may approve; and 2) "other" amendments for any changes that do not quality for an insubstantial amendment. Either option requires a land use application and the code provides no other options, Staff does not believe that the Community Development Director abused his discretion in determining that a conditional use amendment is necessary for the conversion since it would alter the intensity, configuration, and density of the boardinghouse use that was approved through a site-specific conditional use review in 1985, Due Process: Due process was also discussed at the last meeting, Stafffeels that due process was followed in issuing the interpretation, The interpretation request was filed on June 9th and Staff deemed the interpretation request to be complete on June 14th. In response to the interpretation request, Staff issued the interpretation being appealed on June 29t\ which is within 15 days of determining the interpretation request to be complete as is consistent with the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26,306, Interpretations of Title, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not feel that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion by interpreting that the Sardy House would require a conditional use amendment to convert the three (3) boardinghouse rooms to a general living space, Land Use Code Section 26.306, Interpretations of Title, establishes that the Community Development Director has the authority to interpret the text of the land use code and apply it accordingly. Also, since Land Use Code Section 26.425,010, Conditional Uses: Purpose, establishes that the configuration and intensity of a conditional use is amongst the topics of review for a -)- ~ --- conditional use as was discussed above, Staff does not believe that the Community Development Director abused his discretion by interpreting that a conditional use amendment is necessary for the conversion of boardinghouse units to general living space, Staff does not believe that there was a denial of due process in issuing the interpretation or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion. Staff recommends that City Council affirm the Community Development Director's interpretation dated June 29, 2006 by approving the attached resolution. Staff also does not believe that the Community Development Director abused his discretion or exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the second interpretation dated September 18, 2006. By approving the attached resolution, City Council would also affirm the interpretation dated September 5, 2006. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: If City Council finds that there was a denial of due process, or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction/abused his discretion, City Council could reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation and issue a new interpretation that a conversion of three (3) internal boardinghouse units to a general living space in the Sardy House does not require a conditional use amendment and instead only requires receipt of a building permit. City Council could also reverse Staffs interpretation that is attached as Exhibit "B" and find that the boardinghouse use is no longer a conditional use since it was removed from the MU Zone District. Acting upon this option would mean that the use is only a non-conforming use, which would allow for the three (3) boardinghouse units to be converted to a common living area because it would be altering the use in a manner that does not increase the non- conformity, CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No, 69, Series of 2006, affirming the Community Development Director's interpretation dated September 18, 2006, and affirming the Community Development Director's interpretation related to question No, 8 in the June 29th land use code interpretation, which requires a conditional use amendment to convert three (3) boardinghouse units to a generallivjng space in the Sardy House," - 4- ~ ........ , ~ ./ ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - JUNE 29TH INTERPRETATION EXHIBIT B- CONDITIONAL USE VS. NONCONFORMING USE INTERPRETATION DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 EXHIBIT C -1985 STAFF MEMO AND ApPLICATION EXHIBIT D - 1985 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- ,-.. - , RESOLUTION NO. 69 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTEPRET A TION OF LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.425, CONDITIONAL USE, AS IT APPLIES TO THE SARDY HOUSE PROPERTY AT 128 EAST MAIN STREET. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a Land Use Code Interpretation request from Sardy House LLC, requesting responses to a series of questions about how different land use code sections would be applied to several development scenarios that the Sardy House, LLC was exploring on the Sardy House property at 128 East Main Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.306, Interpretations of Title, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation dated June 29, 2006, responding to the interpretation request after the interpretation request was determined to be complete on June 14,2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant Sardy House, LLC, set up a meeting to discuss the interpretation on July 7, 2006, and the Community Development Department subsequently issued a supplemental interpretation dated July 7, 2006; and, WHEREAS, Sardy House, LLC, requested an appeal of Staffs response to question No, 8 in the land use code interpretation dated June 29, 2006 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.316, Appeals; and, WHEREAS, during the August 28, 2006 City Council meeting, City Council requested a land use code interpretation about whether a conditional use that was established legally established through the conditional use review process and then subsequently removed from a zone district is still subject to the provisions of Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation dated September 18, 2006, presenting an interpretation that a use that was legally established through the conditional use review process and then subsequently removed from the zone district is both a conditional use and a nonconforming use and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the appeal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of _ to _ L-~ Resolution No, 69, Series of 2006, affirming the Community Development Director's September 18, 2006 land use code interpretation and June 29, 2006 interpretation that -- -- " ,# Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses, requires a conditional use amendment for the conversion of three (3) boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a general living space, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.316, Appeals, City Council hereby affirms the Community Development Director's September 18, 2006 and June 29, 2006 interpretations that Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses, requires a conditional use amendment for the conversion of three (3) boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a general living space, Section 2 This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances, Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. RESOLVED, passed and approved this 25th day of September, 2006, Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney 2 ,... .- I: j ; f. II/t) 1/ t::-YV11 t!J/ p , . "..,,/ ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: 26.104.100, Definitions; 26.710.180(D)(10)(A)(3), Mixed Use Zone District: Floor Area Ratio; 26.470.040(B)(2), Change- In-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. EFFECTIVE DATE: WIDTTEN BY, c1vmt- APPROVED BY: i . June 29, 2006 James Lindt, Senior Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: Jolm Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, HP Officer SUMMARY David Myler submitted a request for a code interpretation on behalf of Daniel Delano and Prank Peters (Applicants), the owners of the Sardy House. In the interpretation request, the Applicants ask a series of questions related to how various land use code sections apply to the Sardy House property, . PURPOSE Staff has responded to the Applicants' questions in this interpretation and eXplained the basis for our responses, BACKGROUND The Sardy House existed as a single-family residence from 1893 when it was constructed to.1985. In 1985, the Applicants received approval to remodel and expand the existing structure and a conditional use approval to convert the entire building into a boardinghouse (Boardinghouse is a defined term); The Applicants converted the main residence portion of the structure back into a single residential unit in 2003 with the rear portion of the structure that was added in 1985 remaining as a Boardinghouse, As was discussed above, the Applicants have requested a series of code interpretations related to how the land use code applies to the Sardy House's current situation, This interpretation clarifies the Planning Staff's position on how the requested code sections apply to the . Sardy House, . !""'" - ""',....."" "-" DISCUSSION Questions ],2,5,6,7, and 8 Staff has organized our responses to the questions posed by the Applicants in topics, Questions No.1, 2, 5, 6,7, and 8 relate to the definition of "Boardinghouse" in the City's Land Use Code. Below, Staff has listed these questions and the applicable corresponding interpretation: 1. What definition (1985 definition when the conditional use for a boardinghouse was approved or current definition in the land use code) of boardinghouse applies to the current and future use of the Carriage House (rear addition that is currently approved to be used as a boardinghouse)? Staff Response: The 1985 definition of "Boardinghouse" in the land use code applies to the Sardy House because that was the definition in place when a site-specific approval was granted to allow the Sardy House to become a boardinghouse. This approval is what the Carriage House portion of the structure is still operating under today, 2. What is the effect of simply discontinuing the current nonconforming boardinghouse use? Does a discontinuance of a nonconforming use require a development order? Staff Response: The Applicant could discontinue the nonconforming boardinghouse use on the Carriage House part of the structure, but that it could not be used as part of any other use to replace the boardinghouse use until a development order for a change in use is obtained. Staff is of this opinion because Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(2), Change-In-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, states that a change of use, between the use categories identified in Section 26.470,020 (Residential-Free Market, Residential- Affordable Housing, Commercial, Lodging, and Essential Public Facilities), of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as a Historic Landmark shall be reviewed based on the criteria set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.470,040(B)(2), 5, Does the replacement of a non-conforming use (boardinghouse- under any definition) with a conforming use (single-family), with no increase in the floor area of the existing structure in which those uses are contained, constitute a change in use? Staff Response: As is discussed in Staffs response to Question #2 above, the code requires that when you change the use of a structure or a part of a structure amongst the use categories identified in Land Use Code Section 26.470,020 (Residential- Free Market, Residential- Affordable Housing, Commercial, Lodging, and Essential Public Facilities), a change in use approval is required, Staff is not aware of any language in the land use code that would exempt an existing non-conforming use from this requirement and thus, a change in use approval is - ......"""" required to convert the portion of the Sardy House that is operating as boardinghouse to a single-family residential use. 6, To what extent can boardinghouse uses be reduced before such use would be deemed abandoned? For example, could a small portion of the Sardy House, sufficient to provide meals for 6 or more people, be open to the public for such purposes one week per year? Staff Response: The 1985 definition of boardinghouse reads as follows: Boardinghouse, rooming house, dormitolY- A building or portion of thereof other than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple-family dwelling wherein lodging and/or meals are provided for six (6) or more persons for compensation, which compensation may include money, services, or other things of value, For the boardinghouse use to remain active, it must be available to six (6) or more persons for rental as lodging for the majority of the year, Because the definition references lodging of people, the units contained within the Carriage House must be available for overnight lodging on a short-term basis, which by definition of lodging under today's land use code does not allow for it to be occupied by anyone person or entity that is an owner for more than 30 consecutive days or more than 90 days in any calendar year. 7, As long as at least 6 individuals are provided with overnight lodging and/or meals in the Carriage House, for compensation, would a corporate retreat or vacation club type use be consistent with a boardinghouse use under the 1985 definition? Staff Response: If it can be demonstrated that a corporate retreat or vacation club type use of the Carriage House provides overnight lodging and meals on a short-term basis for 6 or more people or entities at a time, it would be permitted under the 1985 definition of boardinghouse, However, the definition of boardinghouse requires a boardinghouse to provide lodging for people that should turnover, so Staff would further interpret that the boardinghouse units if used for a corporate retreat should not be occupied by anyone person or entity for more than 30 consecutive days and 90 days out of a calendar year as the definition of lodge requires in the current land use code, 8, Please advise as to whether a building permit could be issued without a change- in-use approval to eliminate three bedrooms and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens into an open common area as shown on the attached plans (attached hereto as Exhibit "B") , The premise behind this request is that the Carriage House portion of the structure would remain a boardinghouse because it is would still provide lodging and/or meals for more than six (6) people, with the new kitchen and dining space being accessory to the boardinghouse use, "~ --.., Staff Response: The proposed plans would still allow for the Carriage House structure to remain in compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse use definition. If the interior changes proposed in the attached plans were made, there would still be more than six (6) bedrooms in the Carriage House for rental as part of the boardinghouse use as is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition, However, enacting this plan would require an amendment to the approved conditional use plan that was originally established, A conditional use amendment requires submittal of a land use application, which is prohibited in the Mixed Use Zone District until the expiration of the current land use application moratorium that was enacted pursuant to Ordinance No, 19, Series of2006, Questions 3 and 4 Questions 3 and 4 in the interpretation request relate to the provisions' of Land Use Code Section 26,710, l80(D)(1 O)(A), Mixed Use Zone District: Floor Area Ratio, Below Staff has listed these questions and have provided answers based on our understanding of the land use code provisions: 3, There is no definition of "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" in the Land Use Code, There is a definition for "Dwelling - Multi-Family", Under that definition, a single-family dwelling can be considered a multi-family dwelling if a portion of it is used for retail, office or service commercial uses. Absent such an additional use, a single-family dwelling should never be considered to be Free-Market Multi-Family Housing. With respect to the applicability of Section 26,7l0,180(D)(10) of the Aspen Municipal Code (Mixed Use - Floor Area Ratio), as amended by Ordinance No. 12, Series of2006, under what circumstances could the Sardy House be considered "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" as that term is used in Subsection 1O(A)(3)? Staff Response: Based on the text of these defined terms, the single-family residential portion of the structure is not considered multi-family housing as the uses in the structure are currently recognized, because the boardinghouse use that is on the same parcel is not considered' retail, office, or service commercial, but rather is considered lodging, That said, if the Applicant would like to maintain the boardinghouse use in a portion of the structure meeting the requirements of the 1985 definition of a boardinghouse as is discussed in Staffs response to Question #6 above, the single-family residential use combined with the boardinghouse use of the Sardy House would have a cumulative allowable FAR of 1: I as the Applicants have suggested, 4, If the Sardy House (Main Residence and Carriage House) is not considered Free- Market Multi-Family Housing, but continues to include a boardinghouse use component along with a predominantly single-family use, would not the allowable floor area for the combined single-family and boardinghouse uses be based upon a floor area ratio of I: I? Such a combination of uses does not fall within any categories described in Subsections 10(A)(I), (2), or (3), or 10(B)(1) ,..... '-.. , or (2), of the Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio Regulations, Thus, the only floor area limit in such a case is the I: I floor area ratio which applies in the Main Street Historic District (see second sentence of Subsection IO(A) of such regulations), Staff Response: The combined use as a single-family residence and a boarding house has a total FAR of I: I as is' discussed in Staff s response to Question #3 above, That said, if the entire structure were to be converted to a single-family residential dwelling unit as the only use on the site, it would be subject to the allowable dimensional requirements for a single- family dwelling unit in the R-6 Zone District as is established in Land Use Code Section 26,7IO.l80(D)(10)(B), FAR Schedule for single-family and duplex uses when developed as the onlyuse of the parcel, This interpretation is based on the provisions of the land use code that are currently in place and which are subject to change before the moratorium is lifted or expires, APPEAL OF DECISION As with any interpretation ofthe land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision or any part of this decision to the Aspen City CounciL This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item, 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an' adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director, The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed, Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination, ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A"- Request for Interpretation Exhibit "B"- Proposed Carriage House Remodel Plans ,......,. ~~",.." Exh,h,'f i~f/ -, CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.312, Non-Conformities, 26.425, Conditional Uses EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 2006 WRITTEN BY, CkM.&t APPROVED BY: James Lindt, Senior Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, HP Officer PURPOSE: City Council requested an interpretation of the land use code related to whether the Sardy House located at 128 E, Main Street is considered a non-conforming use, a conditional use, or both, BACKGROUND: During the August 28, 2006 City Council meeting, City Council asked for an interpretation from Staff about whether the Sardy House is considered a non-conforming use, a conditional use, or both, The Sardy House existed as a single-family residence from 1893 when it was constructed until 1985, In 1985, the owners of the Sardy House received approval to remodel and expand the existing structure and a conditional use approval to convert the entire building into a boardinghouse (Boardinghouse is a defined term), The owners subsequently converted the main residence portion of the structure back into a single residential unit in 2003 with the rear portion of the structure that was added in 1985 remaining as a Boardinghouse, In 2005, the Office (0) Zone District in which the property was located was converted to the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. In conjunction with changing the zone districts, the boardinghouse use was removed from the MU Zone District. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the definition of "Nonconforming use" in Land Use Code Section 26.104.100, Definitions, the boardinghouse use in the Sardy House is a nonconforming use because it was legally established through the codes that were in place at the time it was initially permitted, but was rendered nonconforming when the 2005 code amendment removed the boardinghouse use from the zone district in which it is located, That said, the boardinghouse use in the Sardy House is also still subject to the conditions, r- - ....~. ..' ~... representations, and site-specific development approvals for the boardinghouse use that was established in the 1985 conditional use approvals, Therefore, the boardinghouse use is subject to the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the land use code and the conditions and representations of the site-specific conditional use approvals, The chart below compares the resulting impact of removing a conditional use versus a permitted use from a zone district. Before Code Change 2005 Code Changc I After Code Change I Removing Boardinghouse from Zone District Permitted Use Nonconforming Use Description: use allowed > Description: use allowed by right wi no review of I to continue subject to a specific development or maximum limitation on operations plan, expansion and intensity Conditional Use & Nonconforming Use Conditional Use Description: Use Description: use allowed I :> allowed to continue subject to a conditional under the site-specific use review and a site- conditional use approval specific proposal. and subject to non- conforming use limitations, The Sardy House would require approval of a conditional use amendment to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units into a common living area as was discussed in Stafrs interpretation dated June 29, 2006. APPEAL OF DECISION As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision or any part of this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item, ,-. -- 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shaH initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed, Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shaH constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination, A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit "A". City Council Minutes from August 28, 2006 . ..... , \ c '=Xlll'bl'-t \'f;! n , ,,,\ " lIEIlORA!1tltJII TO: FROM. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Colette Penne, Pla~ning Office Sardy House - Condit~onalQ~e April 2, 1985 RE: DATE. :c==============c=========cc===========c===c=c========~============~== .,~,.,.~,..,~"".- ""'-~~"'"''''_'-'''''''''''''''n'''~;"",_,,,.:,,,,,,,;,'.~.,,,..'_.::",~_""c<.;'''~. ':";;~;';":"".;;.; , ";".;', ;.;..:.:.:.:..t~"" LOCA'fION. 128 E. Main Street,. Lots P, Q, R and S, and 25 feet of F, G, B and I, Block 66, plus the entire a.~.a .of t!l_~ v,~9"...t~A}.Uey. o - Office and R-6 ZOJIIRG. APPLI CAliT, S J!EQOES'f. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to renovat!' th_e.J'}!F~ Bou,,,e and to build new structures, all to be used as a ,B~cl, a,nd Jl!e,alff~!'t}:pgge. B'ACXGROORDARD REVIEW.." The" Sardy Bouse at 128 E. Main Street is individua,lly. designated as an)Tst:c)r:i.9_~1!:\'9..t:tJre !I!..~.M,~F!,~pdonal' category. Because of thi~ d~~ignation, botn a change from residential to a lodging use and expansion of the st.uct;".".,a,r:~_~!~pt f rOm Change in Use review and GMP competition according to Section 24-11.2(bJ. That section reads that "The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allo,t!nent procedures hereina,ft;er.: provided for (bJ The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received individual historic designation." ' , ,-'- ._. ,_.. ""--"~ ..__.,'^.-..,,,..........,...,~.,._. .... ", The intention of the Office zpne ,is "to provide for ,the estahlishment of offices and, asso6ia~e,4-.c~mm'er'c~-ar uses in such ~" w,ay' a~-. to'-'preserVe"-'~ the visual scale aiidciiar~cefrorfc;rmfr~Yres!denHal areas that now are adjacent' to'commeicTar .~,~qJi9iirnT~,~!t~.a.~~,~e:~_,jtI}g,.&~!'l9 -"Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." A "boardlng house" is listed ,as a Conditional Use"i th the COndition that all conditional uses in the Off ice zone shall' be' - ccm's1 Cley~(r; '.'.'<< ~... - . ~"""",'c..h'.,_,_, .,...,"""''''','''',."..--,~~......-,.,;o'''''....',~~~;~<F<t;.'''''~:.>r-!~'''......:ritHW\'.. '--''", "(l) only for structures which haverec!,iy,e_a..J:\t~!:.9E!C..9!,,!'.i"1"atic:~; (2) for no more .th",n ,t~_o (:2) BuphCort?it,iOrt,al_"lJ_ses.in eacl1 structure (not, inol udin9 within sjich )iIl\X.~I!.HC;n~~s:.C;i.~,'!.~2:ry"dW'ellfng-'" units recognized as moderate,in,com,e, \1(),u'!.;,ng hy an approved housing planJ; and (3) only when off-street parking is provided with alley access for those conditional u,ses a],ong Main Street." The Planning Office feels that ,~I!,eE.,_~nd_Brea,kJaJl;operation is quite analagous to a boarding house and fits ~iiitenHon ,of. .the zone, This application ,also"oP,mplies with the't;lii::!i~"'pr'oii!sroiis 'abovef"r Conditional Use in the Office zone district. .... ..,., .... . ~"',~-_.,-.'--~-.""'-~._-'''''"''''''''~...........;..'''-'~.'''>'._,.."",.,...;.........-.....",...,.......-.,-"",,','_"','_.,;;..>~, ,..... '..."c, Section 24-3.3 cpt o! the_.,~!!Ej.s.ipal COde set,th.e. "'~gtlJ!!,t()r:..!!. grant of Conditional Use in all zone districts and the co~sideration of its sui tabil i ty as:' . '.. -, .-.. .' .>--',~ ". "<'-- ....,L.,-',. .'".-" ",......,...._""_.,_.".,___"""....-'".-.;:;.,."'>~""".:~,.,,'."',..,.~4_""";",._;;,-,"""_<"i""'_' "(1) Whether the proposed uS,e pthe..rw.i~!' ()()mplies with all require- ments imposed by the zoning code; , (2) Whether the proposed use. is consistent withth,eobjectives and purposes of this zoning code-andMfh,,""ap'i,l'fcab1e zoning district 1 and , , -- -> r". ""'" r .,..;' , (3) If the proposed use is d"signed to be compatible with surrouneJ- ing land uses and uses in the area." In terms of "Area and Bu_~k,:Requirements, the proposal conformswi~h tlle zoning code. The lot' areaj,s..!7,400 s.f. and the e"i.stillg house is 4,007 s. f. The to,tal,aIl\9llI)t o~ proposed new constructi9n is 6,506 s. f. for a total build-out oClO, 513 .s. f. ,This..is a n'oor area, tatio of .60:1 and the Office zone:~sE:~..ts....,7_5:J.,,~lth .,a:Pcissl'b'reooriUs"up to 1:1. With all the~uild-outthat wl1I De countea in FAR, the total will be about .65:1.<:. Total number of guest 'raoms w!iI15enine double- occupancy rooms and one parlour sui te in the main hous_e and tfm .ro6flfs in the proposed addition. ' ," '..~.. '....,., ,',' ", , ,'.. The use is consistent wHh the objectiv"sa!lcl purposes of the Office zone, however, the area' wh!cfi'Is'zollecl, R-6 does notall,ow fo;,theBed and Breakfast use. The strip which iszoneil'''1l':6'''Iss!Euat'il'd to tile' north of the vacatedll.lley. Mr. Sardy soI'dth,r-i\orth,75-feet"cittots F, G, Ii and i: over 25year8 ago Iprio,r to requirements for' s~~iiii~i~)" Be then had the, ,,,ll,,,y vacateathrollgh the adoption of Ordin"ns"t 2, adopted on March 6, 1961. Since hli!, own,j>,a.. .t:!'.'! pro!",rty on both sid'es of the alley, the e,ntire area of the ,vac..tedalley became part of his parcel. When th" zoning w'as '"uol\'equently placed on the block, the division line, between, R-6 and 0 - Office was the alley, so this 25 foot piece was lert in.'the R,Co .z~'...' ' The applicant'S representatives point out that in Section 24-3.2Id) there may be an approach to making the alteration in the zoning line without completing a full rezoning process. That Code s~ction ~e:~ds as follows: "24-2.3 Interpretation of the zoning district map. When, due to the scale, lack of detail or illegibility of the zoning district ltIap, there is any uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as toth_..",illte!ld..,c;I 19pat.!()~..9!', ,!,:ny, zoning district boundary as ,shownther"on, 'tne buifCifng inspector shall make an interpretation of saidlllap 'upont.,quest of any person, and any person aggriev"d by any such int"rpretati"n ltIay appeal the same to the planning and zoning commission. The building inspector and planning and zoning commission, in interpreting the map or deciding any appeal, shall apply th" following standards: (a) The zon!ng distri,c~ bounda,ry lines are intende", to follow lot lines, or be parallel or perpendicular thereto, or along the center lines of alleys, str"ets, rights-of-way or water courses, unless s'uch boundary lines are fix'ed dilJl~J1~;gl1:~",~~2?!!t,5~l!,,,,~~,,~.}~~p. (b) Where zoning distr!ct bqundary Hnes ,are so indicated that they approxiltlar,e,ly foiiow lot lines, such lot Hne!!. shall be cons;t,rtl"C1 t9'di:>~"tI!,~.E>!:>"'-'cl,!,ry. lines. (c) Where a zo!,ipg district boundary line, divides a lot, the location of such boundary line, unless indicated by dimensions shown' on th'e"'zoning map, shall be determined by the use of tl)e,map scare-'shown thli!r,,,on. Id) If, after application of th"e f"regoing rul"s, uncertainty still exists ~s to. the exact loca~:iori,_of_,azoning district boundary, "theffne '"hii11:'0,; 'deferm!ned1i1,a reasonable ~ann~r, considering the hfsEoryttf'~'''fne city. s zoning ordinances_~nd,,,aJllendments, and other factors as sl'ta:ll b.e_9-_e~~g_r~J,,~vard:"7'1f '*'"".'-'.:"... .,_...'---"Y'.."".~>"~,,,,.--- The planning Office does not l:>,e1.ieve th,at, th" sb9ve section applies to this case. The at~ap"eCl, ,9,q,P.Y of thezoiilng"rnai:,,'in'il1"c;;les~that there is no problem in illterpreting the scale, detail or legibility of the lin". Ipstead, we fs"l that ,the portions of Lots F, G, B and I should be subject to a formal rezo!,ing application and be conside~ed rel'!~lY~ 2 , c I"" """'" '1 ") .,?:,'-,,:::-'-;,'-:: .'__0;._" ~ to the criteria of Election 24-12,5., Should you concur with this analysis, a Commission member-- sh(j.J.!l,g'_..E1pOnsor the rez.on~ng. However, until the rezoning proceduI:.(! .J~,...,.,cLc:.2'~J!1plished, the Conditional Use permit for the entire site ca~~p~ p~ granted. Returning ,to our review of the c,riteria ,~<?:;r,.Con.d~~ional use, permits, the use should be compatible with the ~urr?'~~ng neignborhoOd. It is si tuated at a very busy intersection anC!' h~s 'j,ublic and commercial uses surrounding it. The clinic and library are'to the west, Mt. Bell's offices are to the l1ort):} ~d', Gr_a'cy"'s','-rs to the east. The northwest COrner of Block 66 is occupfeCl"!;y a multi-family structure and 'the" or ientation of the' Sardy' proper'ty is toward l:!l,,~oyth.and east. To the northeast is the rectory for the Community "Church. The proposal incl udes both a parking sol uti on and an employee housing solution. Eight (8) parking spaces are ~g b.~ provided and the Engineer- ing Department finds that number to be adequate for this project. The spaces will be provided as Si;ii (6) gri,u!io'levE!l covered spaces beneath the new buil ding and two (2) spaces at. 1;!)..e,,~est .. elld of the va,cated alley. The employee generatioll, is..e,!,pected to be twelve' (12) persons in the summer and _winter seasons, and six (6) ,01'1 a year-round basis. Employee housing units' Eo b~""F'ovf(ieCl-1n(i:rude'oiie (l)studio, one (1) one-bedroom unit, and on:!f, ql two-bedroom unit. The Housing Authority does nQt specifical1y'ieview thi~, application because of its exemption from GMP and C~~nge' in Use, butthro~gh the referral process, they complimented the applicant for addreSSing the need. The Historic rre~erv,Cl~i91'1"Com,n'I.ittee has I"ev.i~we?the_ Rlans on a preliminary basis and theywere~";;nfh~sliitrcal)o'~€~the:concept and the pI ans. Removal of the existing garage anif'aClCll.ffons' of 'carriage house" type struct~re6 we're "~~Iuti,?ns, they found to. be c"JIlpatible. They will be reviewing the plans further as they progress in detail. PLAlil!IIIRG ()FFICB RBCOIIMBRllM'IOR. The Planning Office recommends approval a;lCj'fiiegranHng"or~a""'l:OnarHoiiar'ti'se'''pei:mit for ailed anif Breakfast bQ~rg~ng house use in the S~rdy House, as presented, with the following conditions: 1. Rezoning of the so~th 2,5 ,f~.!;,,2L..!!!<!:!lJr G, H and I from R-6 to 0 - Office must ,be, accomplished bet'6r" a permit: is issued for construction on" these"'1.ots. "" . 0".'",..- <,~,,_~....,...<;: c' 2. The facility must be a lic.!'.n.!!"'9,.!'Q9!t"!,,,!v,iS..,,,,,,s1:~bli,sl.!,!,,,nt and must nIJ!ply with thel!l!1.!ilJllld}lequlatloIUJ Goveb.lng the Sani tation o.,f Fo.o.d Service BstablIsiulents in the State of COlo'rado~""" ,'"~ ".. . '~"'.'~ ""."~.",,,,"........~~.w;r~;<<.:tt:-'.'';Ufi.'_<;;>_::i :;;,;,",~.,~,:::'",~:':f":':"~0-"/:,;," ",:":: 3. The Cityls Air POllutign O~d~~~nce must be met. 4. Construction noise, dust and mud carry-out must be minimized and Chapter 16 of 'the Code complied wi tho 5. Trash storage and removal must be approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Removal and relocation of the two (2) fruit trees must be done in accordance:';! ffisecf'fo~ 13::i6"'6i"'tneCocr":" 3 -. ,-" ...... '" ()..,..... CITYOF'ASPEN 130 south aspen, co! 303-5 Iiena street rado 81611 5-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM NAME Lake Forest Renovators, Inc. 626 Sheridan SQuare. Evanston, IL 60202 ADDRESS PHONE (112) 475-8282 NAME OF PROJECT Sardy House PRESENT ZONING LOT SIZE LOCATION 128 E. Main St., Aspen, Colorado tHoU LotS S R. Q, P and S. 25 feet of F. G, H, and I Block 66 and the adjoining alley according to the (indicate street address, lot and block number. May require legal description. A vicinity map is very useful.) records of Pitkin County. CURRENT BUILD-OUT sq. ft. units PROPOSED BUILD-OUT sq. ft. units DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL Adaptive reuse cfone of the most pTominent Bnd respected Victorian buildings in Aspen by creatin~ 10-12 eleRant roams, each with private bath fac11itiE w e a Bed & Breakfast 0 eratiori. The arlour liv!n room, entry hall and front stairway will remain completely intact and every effort will be made to keep as ~uch of the eXisting interior as possible. The exterior will be virtually unchanged on the MainSt. and Aspen St. 6~des. . (More elaborate p~ans and de.SCrJ.pt::Lon w~.u IOLlow_) TYPE OF APPLICATION Conditional Use APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S) 24-33 PLAT AHENDMENT REQUIRED DATE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMPLETED YES __NO ATTACH~mNTS: 1. Ail appl1can'ts must supply Proof of Ownership in the form of a title insurance commitmf~~ or statement from an attorney indicating ,that he/she has researd I the title and verifies that the applicant is the owner of the pror "ty (free of liens and eucumbrances.) 2. If the process requires must be supplied which E directions in some cases publiC hearing, a Property Owner's List 'es all. owners within 300 feet 1n all .lnd adjacent owners in some cases. 3. Number of copies required (by code and/or in pre-application conference _) 4. Plat by Registered Surveyor Yes No ,-. ^""" EXlAl'txjif UfJi PI.A_IRG AJIII\ ZOIIIRG COIIIIl:SSIOR APRII. 2. 1985 RBW BOS.........' I PUBLIC BBARIRGS Sarav BonB8 Coftdf~ional ORe Review Harvey opened the public hearing. penne briefed the commissioners on the applicants intentions of making the Sardy House a bed and breakfast lodge. There is a problem in that a boarding house is a conditional use in the .0. office zone but there is a small piece of the property still zoned R6. They would like the commissions ideas about the project and its use as a conditional use and to discuss rezoning the strip that is still zoned R6. Harvey said that the conditional use couldn't happen unless that portion of the property currently zoned R6 is rezoned. penne said it could be said the use of the property is a bed and breakfast lodge and is alright in this location, in the office zone. By doing that you would be allowing them to do work to the inside of the old structure. The problem with that being that there are parking spaces proposed under the new addition which may be a concern of your conditional use review. If the rezoning didn't occur you would have a prOblem. Harvey asked Penne if the Planning office thought this could be seen as an oversight in the zoning map. Penne replied that the City Attorneys office recommendation was to rezone the property. Harvey asked if it will be a full rezoning. Are we rezoning that 25 feet to .0. office zone, or the entire property to L3. penne replied, the 25 feet to .0. office zone. Penne said the applicants proposal includes both a parking solution and an employee solution. TeChnically they wouldn't have to provide employee housing because of the historic designation. The change in use is exempted from going through Change in use review. The addition is exempted from GMP because of the historic designation. There is not a specific parking requirement but in order to get conditional use approval you need to have some parking in the alley,which they have provided. penne recommended the commission approve this for a conditional use as a bed and breakfast lodge wi th 6 condi tions outli ned in the memorandum. Harvey submitted a letter from Gracey's, an adjacent property, giving their full support to the project. 6 -- "", PT.A_IRG ARD SORIRG COMMTSSIOR APRIL 2. 1985 Harvey expressed concern with the number of parking spaces. It is located on Main St., probably one of the busiest intersections in town. Any impact will be attributable to this project. Penne responded that at present you can't park on Main St. because of the bus stop. The on street area in front of Gracey's or in front of the church's rectory or the Mountain Bell parking lot behind the house are locations where there would be on street parking. There is also the possibility the applicant could rent some of the Mountain Bell parking spaces. Elizabeth Jones, owner of the Hotel Lenado, addressed the commis- sion. She said that most of their guests do not arrive in cars. Kathy Costello, a library employee, addressed the commission. She thought that the library has a parking problem now. She asked if there could time limits set on the parking. Hunt asked how the trash pickup would be handled. replied that it would be put under the stairway section and rOlled out for pickup. Harvey closed the pUblic hearing. Penne asked if the City Attorney's were unable to find a way to rezone that parcel other than through rezoning, would the Planning and Zoning Commission be willing to sponsor it. Harvey asked if anyone on the commission had a problem with sponsoring the rezoning of the back 25 feet to bring it in to performance with the rest of the property, no objection was voiced. Mot:ion! Harry Tegan to the back Harvey entertained a motion to grant a conditional use permit for the bed and breakfast at the Sardy House with conditions 1 through 6 of the Planning Office memorandum of April 2, 1985. Fallin so moved. The motion was amended to add: the Planning and Zoning sponsorship to condition number 1. Peyton seconded. All in favor, motion carried. sel SOlD: - PRIVAT'RJ.y IRI'rIAftD CODB AIIInInIIR_ penne introduced the applicants, Terry Rose and Sarah Pletts. Penne explained the applicants request is to amend Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to add -artists' studios with optional accessory dwelling unit-as a permitted use in the SCl zone and to change the intention statement for the zone to also read: -To allow for employee residences in or adjacent to professional artists studios as a permitted use.. penne added, although they 7 ........... ~~if 1/ "6 {~<t~k - November 4, 2005 ~ Daniel Delano The Sardy Ilouse 12X E, Main Street Aspen, CO X 1611 Tille, ell', ('f '\"1'", Dear I ),nllel; Thl' City Planning Staff has discussed your recent qllCstions about tllture uses [iJ!' the Sardy Ilouse, Following is our position on the ideas that have been presented to LIS to dale, . W l' understand the Sardy House to be located on a parcel that is approximately 17,744 square feet in size, developed with a building that is approximately 13,(J~U square feet of FAR in size, The property is used as a single-t;,unily house (established through a Change in Use application approved in 2003) and, in an annex, contains a number of bedrooms with kitchens that were onginally established under the definition of a "boardinghouse," The Municipal Code no longer mentions boardinghouse as an allowed use in the Mixed Use Zone, "Bcd and Hreaktilst" is an allowed use and as we understand it, the Sardy HOLlse operation meets this definition, which is: "a dwelling used as a commercial 14,)dglllE, l.:stabllslunent for tenlporary guests, other than a holel or lodge, alld whIch contains no more than twelve guest rooms, provides no less than one meal daily for guests, and is operated by an on-site resident manager or owner." . It IS not possible l'or someone to use the entire existing structure solcly as a single, (,"nily house and be in conformance with zoning, A singJe-t;tmily housc may only h<Jve one kitchen, and is restricted to a maximum FAR which is signtlicantly smallcr than the existing building, . It is possible to maintain single family use, and to even convert more of the building for this function, if all but one kitchen is removed and a non-residential USl' allowable in the Mixed Use zone district is legitimatdy established sOll1ewhne on the property, Maximum FAR for a mixed use building III the ;,one district is now I, I, so there is additional square footage availablc, although the portion ofthc building devoted to single family usage may not exceed ,75, I FAI<., . 'rill: l'xisting structure cannot be converted into multi-family hOUSing (thrce or more free market units) without receipt of growth management allocation" that \Vllttld allow all units in excess of the existing single-family unit to becomc l'lcc markl'l dwelling units, In order to receive the growth management allocations, ;- '--' - "", mitigation Il)r affordable housing would be required, Maximum FAR lor liT~ market multi-t~\Inily units on the site with no commercial uses is ,75: I, . Because tbe property is a historic landmark, the existing structure can b~ converted to any allowed use in the zone district through a Change in Us~ proCl:SS, as long as the dimensions comply with zoning, (This includes an art galkry or bank, specitic examples you cited,) No affordable housing mitigatioll is rl:l]uirl:d at tbis time to convert existing space to a commercial usc, . Any new square footage that is constructed will be subject to tbe Growth Management requirements, . A" e:\teriur changes to the property require HPC approval. Plcase ld us know if you have additional questions, SincerL'iy, Amy Guthrie Historic Prescrvation Ol1lcer ",.... ,.. C-KO/'H & sion regulations, or prior to its annexation into the city, a unit or area ofland designated by a separate and distinct number or letter which is illustrated on a plat recorded in the office of the Clerk and Re- corder for Pitkin County, Lot area, The total horizontal area contained within the lot lines of a lot, or other parcel of land, (See, Supplementary Regulations - Section 26,575,020, Calculations and Measurements), Lot depth, The shortest horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines, Lot line, front Thc line normally closest to and/or dividing a lot from a street or street right-of- way. Lot line, rear, The lot line opposite the front lot line, Lot line, side, The lot lines other than front or rear lot lines, Lot width, The horizontal distance between the side lot lines as measured along the front yard setback line, Manufactured home, A single family dwelling unit which is partially or entirely manufactured in a lactory or at some location other than the site of final construction and installation, A manutactured homc is installcd on an engineered, pemlanent foundation and has brick, wood, or cosmetically equiva- lent siding and a pitched roof. A manufactured home is celtified to the National Manufactured I-lousing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U,S,c, 5401, et seq" as amended, ~ Mixed-Use, The use of land or a structure for more than one of the following land uses: "Commercial (which shall include Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commerciat Uses, Office Uses, Service Uses, Service Commercial Industrial Uses, Food Market, and Commercial Parking Facility, but which shall exclude Agricultural Uses and Artist Studio), "Rcsidential (which shall include Detached Dwelling, Attached Dwelling, single-family dwelling, Duplex Dwelling, Multi-Family Dwelling, Manufactured Home, free-market residence, Affordable l'lousing, Employee Housing, Group Home, Dormitory, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Caniage House), "Lodging (which shall include Hotel, Timeshare Lodge, and exempt timesharing, but shall exclude Boardinghouse and Bed and Breakfast), "Civic (which shall include Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses; Child Care Center; Essential Public Facility; Recreational Use; and, Public Uses; but shall exclude Open Space, Open Use Recreation Site, and ), Accessory Uses, Temporary Uses, and the ownership of property by a Non-Profit Organization that is not used as set forth above shall not qualify a property or structure as Mixed-Use, Mobile home, A detached, transportable, one-family dwelling unit intended for year round occu- pancy, and containing sleeping accommodations, flush toilet, a tub or shower bath, kitchen tacilities with plumbing and electrical connections intended for attachment to outside systems, All mobile homes City of Aspcn Land Use Code, June, 2005 J'art 100, l'lIgc 22 ~B. ,...... ,-", c=;(~;t c 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A. Purpose. The purpose ofthe Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a variety oflodging, multi-Iamily, single-family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or fre- qucnt needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (MU) zonc district: I, On Historic Landmark Properties: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commercial Uses, and Bed and breakfast. 2, Service Uses, 3, Office Uses, 4, Lodging, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing, 5, Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses, 6, Public Uses, 7, Recreational Uses, 8, Academic Uses, 9, Child care center. 10, Affordable Multi-Family Housing, 11, Free-Market Multi-Family Housing, 12, Single Family Residence, 13, Duplex Residence, 14, Two Detached Single-Family Residences, 15, Home occupations, 16, Accessory uses and structures, 17, Storage accessory to a permitted use, C. C()/ulitiollaluses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: I, Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26,515, D. Dimellsiollal requiremellts. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: I, Minimum lot size (square feet): 3,000, 2, Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a, Detached residential dwellings: 4,500, 3,000 for Historic Landmark propcrties, b, Duplex dwellings: 4,500, 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties, c, All other uses: Not applicable, 3, Minimum lot width (feet): 30, 4, Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430, City of Aspen Land Use Code, June, 2005, Part 700, Page 39 I""'" -"..... ", ,- . ", ~ .' '. "'~'~ . ~'~~:"~' ~ : 'I '.1';,.:'\..: I.: . ;.., ,,' ::;~.:., .:: '" ,..... ',.:. " .' .:. ,~. 1.,.: . , . , ." .... .:. '~,~" /;, '~':.:'>~'~ :':'~',:; '. ,'"' ." €k~16r:t F' " " ., , " , ' . ,;.:"" . 'j . (' . .' \.: ,{ .',. ':"1':- .' ,~, , . . . . ;' '..:" &2+1.1 .\SPEN cons SZ4-U m.......1ine iD,Cllldes the feminine. The word "shall" ia lIlanUtorY. and ~ word Mmay" ia penDiesive. (A) Alley. A public ",ay 1l8r11lanlntly _ved as, a .-dary mU118 of access to ablllting property. (h) B....meJlt That mll of a strucf;\llB fIfty (50) per cent or uwre of which \8 belO1l' existing ITtule. 8ubord.inate to the princi. pal Dee oftb.e bal\ding, and uaed. fO!:' parking, storage, and other _adarY purposes, 'those areaa beneath a ball&ment shall be d.esignB.ted lIIIbbll!em,ent(s). For the purpoSe of calculatlnll floor area ratio an.cl allowable floor area. bueJne!ltB and 811bbaBllment6 conatru.ctod bl ~0Il with Ilnlle-fNnUY or duplex strUc. tures In 8111 lIl)!Ie oliaUict are no!. requjr1tcl to be subordinate to tlw priucipal use of tho builcllng. (e) BoortliJlll"""'.' roomi~ hD...e. d4rmJ.tory: A buildin. t1r portion tbareof ot.ber than a hotel. mutel, lodira or lIlultlple-fllDli1y dwelling whmlin lodgiOl: and/or mula are providlld for e1ll (6) or more perlIODl (or compelUlatlon. which _.--n D1l1:t' lnchldoe money. 8ervieee. or othlll' thinll8 of vel__ (d) BWltli~ Io3q pmnanent. 8trUcture built fea the .helt.- or enclOlure of perlona, animal,. chat:telB en property of anY Idud. and not. inCl-NJ advertllli!IC aip' bonda or feneu. (a) Buildi..... .<<..: Area or a lat at late upon whioh · Duildi.n(I or sm.cture may be erecUJd, or open .pace or _.1 located. (t) DwelU,.,: A pemlanent buUdlna or portion thereof which i8 u88d .. t.he private r"'cJ,eftCII or elseplnll pl- of OIla or more humall bei1ll8. but :not. ineludinC hotela,loclp llIdte. clubB, hOlpitele. temporary structures 8uch aa tenLt, rai).road ClIl'8. trailC!'s, street cars. metel prefabriated sedlOlUl. or similar unite. (1) One-falDil:r dwelling: A deUloCbecl principal buDdlnl, other than a tftobill bailie. delliped for and uaed .. a dwellin, n.clui.....' by one family u an independell& b_IoeePlllllnii. (21 1'wO'fIlDli1Y dwelling ("lit> mown 8,S a "duple,,"): A d-'ached principel bailcll.nl contlli.uinlJ only two (2) dwel!illl al\i~ Ihul1lll a c..-nmon wall no la8a than Sul'l" No, 26 1434 (" i""" ,",/ EK"~~;f e Sardy House Conditional Use Permit Conditions: 1985 I. Rezoning of the south 25 feet of Lots F, G, H and I from R,6 to 0 - Office must be accomplished before a permit is issued for construction on these lots, 2, The facility must be a licensed food service establishment and must comply with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado, 3, The City's Air Pollution Ordinance must be met, 4, Construction noise, dust and mud carry-out must be minimized and Chapter 16 of the Code complied with, 5, Trash storage and removal must be approved by the Engineering Department, 6, Removal and relocation of the two (2) fruit trees must be done in accordance with Section 13-76 of the Code, 7. The property owner shall bear the restoration costs beyond the normal costs of restoring asphalt or sodded surface for work caused by utility companies' disturbance of the vacated alleyway, 8, Any enlargements or other changes in the water system shall be reviewed by the Water Department prior to issuance of a building permit. -- 12il:16 4. 32f'M COMMl~''-lY DEVELOfMENT __ NO, m:, j, 1. 11 CK4;bf~-I 1= ,--< required to conwrt the portion of the Sardy House that is operating as boardinghouse 10 a single-family residential use, 6, To what extent can boardinghouse uses be reduced before such use would be deemed abandoned? For example, could a small portion of the Sardy House, sufficient to provide meals for 6 or more people, be open to the public for such purposes one week per year? Stall Response: The 1985 definition of boardinghouse reads as follows: Boardinghouse, rooming house, dormitolY- A building or portion of thereof otht:r than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple-family dwelling wherein lodging and/or meals are provided for six (6) or more persons for compensation, which compensation may include money, services, or other things of value, For the boarchnghouse use to remain active, it mus~ be available to six (6) or more persons for rental as lodging for the majority of the year, Because the definition references lodging of people, the units contained within the Caniage House must be awilable for overnight lodging on a short-tenn basis, which by definition of lodglllg under today's land use code does not allow for it to be occupied by anyone person or entity that is an owner for more than 30 consecutive days or more than 90 days in any calendar year, ''"-'' 7, As long as at least 6 individuals are provided with overnight lodging and/or meals m the Carriage House, for compensation, would a corporate retreat or vacation club type use be consistent with a boardinghouse use under the 1985 definition? Staff Response: If it can be demonstrated that a corporate retreat or vacation club type use of the Ca11'iage House provides ovemight lodging and meals on a short-temr basis for 6 or more people or entities at a time, it would be pennitted under the 1985 definition of boardinghouse However, the definition of boardinghouse requires a boardinghouse to provide lodging for people that should tumover, so Staff would further interpret that the boardinghouse units if used for a corporate retreat should not be occupied by anyone person or entity for more than 30 consecutive days and 90 days out of a calendar year as the definition of lodge requires in the cuncnt land use code. 8. Please advise as to whether a building pennit could be issued without a change- in-use approval to eliminate three bedrootnS and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens into an open common area as shown on the attached plans (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"), The premise behind tlris request is that the Carriage House portion of the structure would remain a boardinghouse because it is would st1l1 provide lodging and/or meals for more than six (6) people, with the new kitchen and dining space being accessory 10 the boardinghouse use, '-'" i 21111C 4 3'2fM CC:M~TY DEVELOPMENT ......... NO, E~:: .,,""" , "'- ..# '~, Stan Response: ~ The pwposed plans would still allow for the Carriage House structure to remain in ~ r compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse use definition, rfthe interior changes proposed in the attached plans were made, there would still be more than six (6) bedrooms in the Carriage House for rental as part of the boardinghouse use as is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition, However, enacting dris plan would require an amendment to the approved condiltonal use plan that was originally established, A conditional us~ amendment requires submittal of a land use application, which is prohibited in the Mixed Use Zone District llntil the expiration ofthe current land use application moratorium that wus enacted pursuant to Ordinance No, 19, Series of2006, Ollesriol1s 3 and" Questions 3 and 4 in the interpretation request relate to the provisions of Land Use Code Section 26,710, I 80(D)(1 O)(A), Mi,.ed Use Zone District: Ploor Area Ratio, Below Staff has listed these queSl10ns and have provided answers based on our understandmg of the land use code provisions: '~ 3, 111ere is no defininon of "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" in the Land Use Code. There rs a definition for "Dwelling - Multi-Family". Under that definition, a single-family dwelling can be considered a multi-family dwelling if a portIOn of it is used for retail, office or service commercial uses, Absent such an additional use, a single-family dwelling should never be considered to be Free-Mark\:t Multi-Fan1ily Housing, With respect to the applicability of Section 26,710.180(D)(10) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code (Mixed Use- Floor Area Ratio), as ::unended by Ordinance No, 12, Series 01'2006, under what circumstances could the Sardy House be considered "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" as that term is used in Subsection 10(A)(3)'? Staff Response: Based on the text of these defined temrs, the single-family residential portion of the structure is not considered multi-family housing as the uses in the structure are currently recognized, because the boardinghouse use that is on the same parcel is not considered retail, oniee, or service commercial, but rather is considered lodging. That said, if the Applicant would like to maintain the boardinghouse use in a portion of the structure meeting the Tequirements of the 1985 definition of a boardinghouse as is discussed in Staffs response to Question #6 above, the smgle-family residential use combined with the boardinghouse nse of the Sardy House would have a cumulative allowable FAR of 1: I as the Appltcants have suggested, 4, If the Sardy House (Main Residence and Carriage House) is not considered Free- Market Multi-Family Housing, but continues to include a boardinghouse use component along with a predominantly single-family use, would not the allowable floor area for the combined single-family and boardinghouse uses be based \lpOn a tloor area ratio of I: I? Such a combination of uses does not fall within any categories described in Subsections IO(A)(1), (2), or (3), or lO(B)(l) '../ r!....;,...,.) "" ~'.: " '011 ,.1.- -J#!: '~r.~.: ,-, !I,,~"""- ~-~'~"'r"", . ',.' ~.~~. ~1:"h'~' :-. t:i~I" I~f" ". Ii;::: '~- If;.,....~. "I \' ~~.~ ~ ,.n ".,t. I I I I I I I I I I '~7~"'--i..\.,~~..~~ .~~ ,. ?~'""'~-",,)~),'''~Q ~ ...... i'S..\-~>:"';';j';-:-..fi!:~"4 . ", "to, ,:..__ '~}.T~_lt~. i~~ .,... ,"'7.-,.. ), ;.,;l"",l!f~"". , :"b" - ,. . .za....:-. ~/.... ....~,.< , ..:'s----;i,;. .1;:- ':., ). .~.~.~~~"..,It" . ....r:. ...,..~~,< . .~_.. ~. ...~"~tI:-' ~~ '~".-, _" ,~.. :1,.,,,,?,~. J' ~" '" . ~_~"!.;. i.~:.;?;.~''f6 .,,)~.. t . ::- -:..~..');.;;j~::.." . if ~ ~ ~ "".',' ..~~~." ..J'-,::;, ?, ~.... :'':'::~i'''' {'&~l J.I~ ..; _F'. ~"""".:: :<?'......~~.<.,~ -j' " -" " _ ,-s._~.oI. ~ j. I p. .1" ......... ........" ... t'.l'" I-;.~-:~';..~,::'>J//I " ,~~'jf ',,! .........;ert...~!}...~I.' n-,.-- I"JI \.. j '. ~~...!:-..:;.~..,,:-""(~ "'T t. t~ " ';t;;;~:"~;:~i~:'- "')~'~ c ~ ... =-. ._=--'\"~__.t:... "!040!1 - ~ '~~:p tt.......1. ,"':.-,. "1''':1 ';l~'" ;~v~" "1: tl'~;' - ~r:: (.: ... ...,_-:t.l....,.'11.~. ~_ ~ , .' ..i~~:;"~.:...,.: ~.,.. ~..~.It~i ,;:..<~";.~ '~,... 't'''' ,'".... . ,,".;;!!,,,..,, -,j1'>'~-'~ ,/ V" ~ .. ...'(). ..,..... --'_' ..1 ' :rt;, ~.,J-..:~..;:;."'....~t .. ,~. r.'.\ :1:.:......l' ~~~~:.~~':"',(1.~~. t ,vc: :j.'- 'I"" o..!-r ...~."I'~ .......~..~~ .J. ' t"". ...................... .......' '...... '-":'-.-. "-".' :..1................. ":"~#..,~P-;: l.-t'.....-:.. ':.-" . "-"-..,~"'-~~'.1I.,-t t. "J'.~ ~ ...... ..... > <It _. .,.-.,..:~ "".~ .. - .:..;_:~c,.;,'~';)';:r ,., ['" . ~r:~...rr.,~ ~.~:t 1 . .'T . '.: ~ ....~~.r'J!~'-df:---= ~.)~~~~i; .................................'-.....-. l1ri"~~~eXf:,'T~: - -"'.<~f. ..j 1'--- m I : _..,Ir IS........;;:. I I " .~... ~!."...-'...;t(....,'!':t>. ,~,~.\ 1,. -:.,-,""...~ "':o.,.c._,.....""'~"'.. I """~5'''~' ~ ." ,+, .' . .;ow<" .'-~" ' ..,.", ~: ':'.:. :---i.:N.~ .....1'!...<e' - " . ..... ;("~ . . "-:~ :~<:~,~~.,;'~ I ':::. f(' (~ " ' .....'jQ'j~''"..~~.l), ,.1 "I f[m:! :;"......;., :!',[;t", .j"':' "~I.:r.>:~'l ' " , .-e'~,..-_-1.'.&-\< ".<!;~~'~ .~;~ '11"\ .;:.....~.;.~..~';'\'t~ "t.~ ~ ..\' ":...L,-..,.tO::~..~:..;,."""i.........._ "''i~~ '...,....:.,.....-rIi;-r:::~.~;.~" ~.'b"~~1!:~77 oS "*""'....-& .-T:i?tlil ..."" "c:; r ""':... " I......,." " . t' . . ~oJ,:( ~~; ~'" ..... ~~ l ..t ~.:~\'i",.&:'Q;o:~;' ,_~+$',:.' '~ ......I~ -~"'~ '..J.....r fi'l .;r~~ ""~...~J::3.~.:..,d,.._ ~ .. . I .~.~~~....}<:. '-- .~,~];~,~'L.;'*r '" t,~~ ' ~- ~~~.:...;.e,~~ -,',,-"" '" ~~.!',t~,-~-~,'~ ..'l:;:....~ il ,.. t.-t ~_..,......",,,,...,,,,,~,, < t .., " or ".' '\.,......-,'.),.~ . . f. '~.:. ...:x, ~:"-,""'l>;: ',l, " ,Ir, ,", , c." , :~....~':::.l.:.r:;-,::;::~..it~~t ." .o{,.. :_..;..,it...:..-;...;::~I..,..-.',~f,.. ,,~1'1;I' '--"_' ...... -~..... t' r'l~~~,.u-~..~~. ""'.~ ... ~"","'~'..~~-i:' ,:r~;,...'i-:. .'ill-'~ .,'l: ..:.."..;r::."::;;.:..,,,F~,-,:' 1\1 "",,-,' ,- _~..~J':'o." ~ '7-":' !:'!"" ,,-.,..- .' ... .... .t .J. '. " ,"\o~,)os...-"" ~,~"''1t.''C:t.";:, ,.,: ;1\~. ...so:-. #i'~_4''''''''.'''-''",,~' . ~'''' l1 J ,...,: ;;;..~~, ''k''':.'n.<, r,\ :. 'p' .~,. r;'!"~;7 .;..;,,-.;.;<,:foloI'y ,t, · .,~'......~..~;..:i:T~..i...:.. ,r '"' .~"",=_4 .....:_,.__.,c"t~i -.. 10. ~ '..... _r ~l:L.:.~>J''; . .....:... ...."'...~l-...:ti' ...;.,. :i.f' . ",,-"_/., < r~4~' .''f, " . --. ....~..t.r...p,-4'.t-~.~'~ I' .",j:;;-~~-,.....:;.~,," .':' , "'....~:0."',., :~-' I. ~, ..- ~...~... ,..,~,!..,.tJ ...."~. : "It- '* ;'.'it?~;-'?::.~.,~~~.. ,~,.:!., "~'~""'-~''''''--' ..." {d ...~~.~~ ,,'~-S.r .~ '~ "7'! o=<" ,.. ..., L> .' ~...1;~.:\.~. . ~H El""". 'I II' . <, . ,..,. ,Y"-'~'. I ' .~._,.......',~,'r _ & -~'"". ",", ~...- - ':'I.";;;:...~~"f'.-,' ~. . .-.:..:'.,'''''''''''- ' ""-""~!L'" I ,~~1?~:;'l'j~ . i~ , ".-,;.~~ G;.cr..; ", ~ ..... -'J.... ~:. ,:. ':'. . ...."..~~'"'...~1--. . _ ..' I I' ': bC::~-'~~~:~'''~' ... ....:' (.'~...~ .-.........." ''f-, i I>'';''/'. ..,? ~. '''It'' 'I:" I ,it:..; ..,-~". :.....,). - ...., '\~, ~.. ~ ( -;1tJ>'\'~~~.:~~'.~ f ~:. J-,... ~. <, '~~''''I'":'''~ ~,., . '?4 ....-S ,~,~,..... ;>'''';~,', ~'f fl.." I " /.1 .-...,.""" I -.--.'--- ""'T . '..'. ','<'. ' ., ,',," ,,; "ir.-"" III L ,; ~ ''':' ""-;::-":"1 . It'-r I .J. . _' .'.:e-~'1't't:-l' ~ l~ l ~j :'~.T?,,=,.;-,:J ~~L.".;J t ~~~':"'''7~,:,-::,:::~~' .,~ .'., I !'t.,"S;'~.~~\- j.,/~. j...-..:.-=, "; ....-- ...."-~>, ~.r.~' I'" 'I~.:;,.....I ,,>_, ,. .~~-...~re- I' .~.:WI!.,>"" ~,/ .~",:;.... ': tjI';, ,,~ ?,,-,' -.,,"" .-. ~,"''''' ~!,..--... I 1J.... .~" , ,~.;-"C. ~ ~. J __-:. ~ ~~'!~..~- : \', . - - ..... ":_-"'=',~= ,.} /J/' ....,.".,.;:.,~,,~k':':........ it . r:",,_, ,~ I" ..J -~~I.;)&,'''' " . '" . .."'..... -= ~.}F..~- \ 1 tI:.. ,~ ~~~.;;z~-:~ {'..' '... . ~ .!(. . !if ...., :.- .,:;,..). t._'" ~~~'h "_'~. " -, ~ . ,.' . '0..... ." '- . "..... ~"'" .l.;.1:!';"'.;" .'. ..~..J:'~, /_.: ~~~::,. _.::~>_' . ,. ~.. /. r;:. r-~ .,; ~ ~ -' -t- I: l' I (j\ , t I . . I , i -- I I I I I I I I I I , o o I I I I -~ ... ~--~ _7 ,~ . , I I I >"/ / ------- (.~~ ; ''20:.t'- '\/0 ...;) ~.. ~"'-;::o . . (~D) Eyl,;bii /I not in conflict with this Title. The City's decision-making bodies may adopt rules of procedure to limit the number of development applications which may be considered at a hearing, 7, Record, a, Records of hearing, All hearings shall be recorded by audio-tape or other similar recording device, A copy of the audio tape of a hearing shall be provided upon the request of any person and the payment of a fee covering the reasonable cost thereof, b, Record, The transcript of oral proceedings, including testimony and statements of personal opinions, the minutes of the secretary, all applications, exhibits and papers submitted in any proceeding before the decision-making body, the report and recommendation of the Community Development Director, and the decision and report of the decision-making body shall constitute the record. D. Actions by decision-making bodies. All decision-making bodies shall act in accord with the time limits established in this Title. Action shall be taken as promptly as possible in consideration of the interests of the citizens ofthe City of Aspen, Depending upon which decision-making body has final approval authority over a given development application, a site specific development plan may only be approved by written resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, or by ordinance adopted by the City CounciL Any land use approval which places any burden upon or limits the use of private property shall be by ordinance, All resolutions and ordinances granting final approval for a site specific development plan shall: 1. Be preceded by a public hearing following public notice by publication (See Section 26,304,060(E)(3)(a), below); and 2, Include the following provisions: a, The rights granted by the approval of this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights, Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by this Code within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26,104,050 (Void permits), b, The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26,304,070(A) of this Chapter. c, Zoning that is not part of the approved site specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. City of Aspen Land Use Code, June, 2005, Part 300, Page 11 ~ ....... ....... '-' ~ MEMORANDUM '/VIII.f- .- '- TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director James Lindt, Senior Planner '--~ ~ Appcal of Land Use Code Intcrpretation- Land Use Codc Section 26.425, Conditional Uses- Public Meetin2 ~M DATE: August 28, 2006 PROJECT: APPEAL OF LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION REQUEST SUMMARY: The Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation on June 29, 2006, and a subsequent supplemental land use code interpretation on July 7, 2006, The interpretations are a response to an interpretation request submitted by Sardy House, LLC, owners of the Sardy House, The Appellants have appealed one provision that was provided in the interpretation dated June 29th that requires the submittal and approval of a land use application for a conditional use amendment to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse rooms In the Sardy House into a living room area for the boardinghouse, ApPELLANTS: Sardy House, LLC. STAFF Staff recommends that City Council affirm the Community RECOMMENDATION: Development Director's interpretation, REQUEST SUMMARY: As was briefly described above, Sardy House, LLC (known herein as the "Appellants") have requested an appeal (letter of appeal and letter of justification attached as Exhibit "A") of a provision in a land use code interpretation that was issued by the Community Development Director on June 29, 2006 (attached as Exhibit "B") , Staff issued a land use code interpretation and a supplemental land use code interpretation (attached as Exhibit "C") in response to some specific questions (code interpretation request is attached as Exhibit "0") posed by the Appellants related to several possible development options for the Sardy House, The one provision that was included in these land use code interpretations that the Appellants are asking for relief from is Staffs response to question No, 8 in the interpretation dated June 29,2006, Staffs rcsponse to question No, 8 would require the Appellants to apply for and obtain approval of a conditional use amendment if they wished to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a living room area (plan attached as Exhibit "H") for the boardinghouse use before applying for a building permit. The Appellants have -1- ,;-. ......... contended in the letter of appeal that they should not be required to obtain a conditional use amendment and should be able to simply apply for a building permit for the interior changes to the Sardy House that are described above, Therefore, the Appellants have contended that the Community Development Director has abused his discretion by requiring an amendment to the conditional use approval and requests that City Council reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation related to question No, 8, The letter of appeal has also suggested that Staff has not provided them due process because of the amount of time that elapsed since they first verbally asked if they could simply apply for a building permit to make the aforementioned changes to the floor plans of the boardinghouse, REVIEW PROCESS: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,3l6,030(E), Appeal procedures: Standard of review, City Council may affirm, modifY, or reverse an interpretation made by the Community Development Director. In order to modify or reverse the interpretation, City Council must make a finding that there was a denial of due process in issuing the interpretation or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion. The appeal is a public meeting, but is not a public hearing because the appeals section of the code requires that Council's determination be based on the record that was previously established in issuing the interpretation, STAFF COMMENTS: Abuse of Discretion: Land Use Code Section 26.425,010, Conditional Uses: Purpose, describes that conditional uses are those land uses that are compatible with other uses in the zone district in which they are located, but which require review of their location, design, configuration, intensity, and density to ensure their appropriateness, The Sardy House received conditional use approval (1985 staff memorandum attached as Exhibit "E") to construct a carriage house addition to the rear of the historic residence that was to be used for I 0-12 boardinghouse units, Based on the above text of the code, Staff believes that the Appellants' request to convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units to a living room space for common use by all of the boardinghouse guests is a change in the configuration and intensity of the boardinghouse use on the parcel and requires a conditional use amendment. The Appellants' letter dated August 14, 2006, suggests that the Community Development Director has abused his discretion in determining that the proposed changes require an amendment to the conditional use approvaL The Appellants have also argued that a conditional use amendment is not necessary because the boardinghouse portion of the structure would still comply with the 1985 boardinghouse definition, While Staff agrees that the proposed conversion may still be in compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse definition, it is Staffs position that a substantive amendment to an existing conditional use requires approval regardless of the operation's continued compliance with the definition, As was previously discussed, the purpose statement of the conditional use section requires a review of the intensity, configuration, and density of a use to insure the appropriateness of the land use, The conditional use section goes on to describe the process for amending a -2- r ......... - \-..."" development order for a conditional use, There are two amendment options: I) an insubstantial amendment for which the Community Development Director may approve; and 2) "other" amendments for any changes that do not qualify for an insubstantial amendment. Either option requires a land use application and the code provides no other options, Staff does not believe that the Community Development Director abused his discretion in determining that a conditional use amendment is necessary for the conversion since it would alter the intensity, configuration, and density of the boardinghouse use that was approved through a site-specific conditional use review in 1985, Due Process: The Appellants have also suggested that Staff has not provided them due process in making our interpretation because they feel that Staff indicated that they could construct the conversion on several occasions, which they have tried to document in the appeal letter. Conversely, Staff does not believe that the Appellants were given any indication that they could apply for a building permit to convert the units into common living area, In the following paragraphs, Staff would like to refute some of the Appellants' allegations that Staff indicated that the proposed conversion could be done by simply applying for a building permit. The appeal letter indicates that the Appellants' attorney, David Myler, called Staff on April 27th and asked if a building permit could be submitted for an interior remodel that does not increase the floor area of a property or whether a remodel of that sort would be caught in the building permit moratorium, Staff recalls the conversation and recalls that a specific conversion plan was never described or discussed and that the specifics of the Sardy House's proposed conversion were not mentioned, Therefore, Staff believes this allegation to be misleading in that the scope of the proposed interior remodel was not divulged to Staff at this time, It is further discussed in the appeal letter that one of the Appellants and the representative of the party that had the Sardy House under contract, Gwen Dickenson, met with Staff on May 12'h and Staff indicated that they could go ahead and convert the three (3) boardinghouse units into a common living space, The letter further describes that Staff said that we "can't think of anything that would prevent interior walls being tom down". Staff concedes that the staff members that were present for this meeting did not come up with any code basis at this meeting to prevent the Appellants from applying for a building permit for an interior remodel. However, at the conclusion of this meeting the Staff members (Amy Guthrie and James Lindt) involved in the meeting expressed to the Appellant and Gwen Dickenson that a specific proposal for an interior remodel was needed to give them a definite answer on whether an interior remodel would be permitted without any land use actions, Staff further indicated at the conclusion of the meeting that the Appellants needed to pose their questions in writing, Gwen Dickenson appeared to get the message that Staff could not make a determination on whether any land use actions were required to construct an interior remodel unless without a -)- I"'" ....... .""...... specific remodel plan, as is evidenced by her e-mails (attached as Exhibit "F") of May 16th" In her e-mail, she asks Staff to make a determination on whether a reduction in rooms would need a land use review absent of a plan, The letter of appeal also then suggests that Staff mistreated the Appellants' request to make a determination by taking such a long time to render a decision on whether they could convert three (3) of the boardinghouse units into common living with only a building permit. In response to this claim, Staff has documented in the previous two paragraphs that Staff expressed to the Appellants that a specific remodel plan was needed in order to make a definite decision on whether a land use application was necessary. Staff did not receive a specific remodel plan (attached as Exhibit "H") until June 9th when the interpretation request was filed, Upon receipt of the interpretation request, Staff deemed it complete on June 14th as is evidenced by the e-mail that was sent to David Myler on June 14th (attached as Exhibit "G" ) and issued the interpretation on June 29th, which is within the 15 days that is required by Land Use Code Section 26,306(C)(3), Interpretations of Title, After the original interpretation was issued, the Appellants requested a meeting with Staff to make their argument that several aspects of the original interpretation were too restrictive, Staff accommodated the Appellants by meeting with them on July 7, 2006, Subsequent to the meeting, Staff considered the Appellants' arguments and issued a supplemental interpretation on the same day that the meeting was conducted, Staff feels that they have been very responsive to the Appellants' requests after receiving a specific remodel plan, Staff does not believe that there has been a denial of due process, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not feel that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion by interpreting that the Sardy House, would require a conditional use amendment to convert the three (3) boardinghouse rooms to a general living space. Land Use Code Section 26,306, Interpretations of Title, establishes that the Community Development Director has the authority to interpret the text of the land use code and apply it accordingly, Also, since Land Use Code Section 26.425,010, Conditional Uses: Purpose, establishes that the configuration and intensity of a conditional use is amongst the topics of review for a conditional use as was discussed above, Staff does not believe that the Community Development Director abused his discretion by interpreting that a conditional use amendment is necessary for the conversion of boardinghouse units to general living space, Staff does not believe that there was a denial of due process in issuing the interpretation or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion, Staff recommends that City Council affirm the Community Development Director's interpretation by approving the attached resolution, - 4- ~---~----~-"._~,--,,~,-", - '- RESOLUTION NO. f.D~ (SERIES OF 2006) \ A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTEPRETATION OF LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.425, CONDITIONAL USE, AS IT APPLIES TO THE SARDY HOUSE PROPERTY AT 128 EAST MAIN STREET. . WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a Land Use Code Interpretation request from Sardy House LLC, requesting responses to a series of questions about how different land use code sections would be applied to several development scenarios that the Sardy House, LLC was exploring on the Sardy House property at 128 East Main Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.306, Interpretations of Title, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation dated June 29, 2006, responding to the interpretation request after the interpretation request was determined to be complete on June 14,2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant Sardy House, LLC, set up a meeting to discuss the interpretation on July 7, 2006, and the Community Development Department subsequently issued a supplemental interpretation dated July 7, 2006; and, WHEREAS, Sardy House, LLC, requested an appeal of Staffs response to question No, 8 in the land use code interpretation dated June 29, 2006 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,316, Appeals; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the appeal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of _ to _ L-~ Resolution No, , Series of 2006, affirming the Community Development Director's interpretation that Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses, requires a conditional use amendment for the conversion of three (3) boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a general living space, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,316, Appeals, City Council hereby affirms the Community Development Director's interpretation that Land Use Code Section 26.425, ". \,.... ......''''"'- "'../ Conditional Uses, requires a conditional use amendment for the conversion of three (3) boardinghouse units in the Sardy House to a general living space, Section 2 This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances, Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. RESOL VED, passed and approved this 28th day of August, 2006, Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney 2 I"'" '-" -. ....., ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: If City Council finds that there was a denial of due process, or that the Community Development Director exceeded his jurisdiction/abused his discretion, City Council could reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation and issue a new interpretation that a conversion of three (3) internal boardinghouse units to a general living space in the Sardy House does not require a conditional use amendment and instead only requires receipt of a building permit. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No, _, Series of 2006, affirming the Community Development Director's interpretation related to question No, 8 in the June 29th interpretation request submitted by Sardy House, LLC, which requires a conditional use amendment to convert three (3) boardinghouse units to a general living space in the Sardy House," A TT ACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - LETTER OF ApPEAL EXHIBIT B- LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION DATED JUNE 29, 2006 EXHIBIT C - SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION DATED JULY 7, 2006 EXHIBIT D- LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION REQUEST EXHIBIT E -1985 STAFF MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT F - MAY 16TH GWEN DICKENSON E-MAILS EXHIBIT G --JUNE 14TH E-MAIL TO DAVID MYLER EXHIBIT H - REMODEL PLAN -5, J GI1,fJ,l:Jl; r ....; - July 13, 2006 RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2006 qUILOIN~O/"tJY , , " EP4Rn.J/FN' To: Chris Bendon From: Frank Peters and Daniel Delano! Sardy House, LLC. Re: Appeal of Staff opinion regarding the Sardy House status and the building moratorium, Chris, This is your formal notice that we are appealing the planning staff interpretation of the land use code as it is applied in the response to question number eight in your memo of June 29, 2006. At this time we don't need to rush the public notice and scheduling to get on the council's next agenda, We are simply preserving our right to an appeal at this time. There is no official form that we are aware of for the notice of appeal. If this notice is insufficient in any way, please let us know, Thank you, ~~ ~~eters .1) (~ r-~'~ Daniel Delano RETAIN FOR PERIIMENT RECORD Sardy House, LLC' ]28 East \lam Street. Aspen, Colorado 81611' T 970,920,2525 F, 970,920.4478' ww\\'sardyhousecom o , . ,:) '-"""\~":'-i ~"'A It ''\ 1w, \Ai .4UG 1 4 2006 Mr. James Lindt, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department .r",:,,'; q!Jltl\!~'-"~ August 14, 2006 Hand Delivered Re: APPEAL OF STAFF OPINION REGARDING SARDY HOUSE Dear James: Thank you for the time you have devoted to this complex and serious matter. Please understand that while we may refer herein to you and to the city planning staff collectively in somewhat negative terms, we feel no personal animosity. We realize the work of city planners is difficult and often thankless, At your request, this letter is to give an account of some of the ways we believe the Aspen Community Development Staff has abused its executive discretion and failed to extend due process to us as owners of the Sardy House, particularly in the Staffs answer to our Question #8, regarding the processing of a building permit for a limited remodel of the Sardy House--with no change to the exterior of the existing structure and no increase in square footage--during the current Moratorium, Our Question #8 was: "Please advise as to whether a building permit could be issued without a change-in- use approval to eliminate three bedrooms and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens iuto an open common area as shown on the attached plans. The premise behind this request is that the Carriage House portion of the structure would remain a boardiughouse because it would still provide lodging and/or meals for more than six (6) people, with the new kitchen and dining space being accessory to the boardinghouse use." The Staffresponse was: "The proposed plan would still allow for the Carriage House structure to remain iu compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse use definition. If the interior changes proposed in the attached plans were made, there would still be more than six (6) bedrooms in the Carriage House for rental as is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition. However, enacting this plan would require an amendment to the approved conditional use plan that was originally established. A conditioual use amendment requires submittal of a land use application, which is prohibited iu the Mixed Use Zone District until the expiration ofthe current land use application moratorium that enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 19 Series of 2006." Sardy House, LLC' 128 East Mam Street. Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Ii 970,920,2525 Fi 970920.4478' wwwsarJyhouse,com - - ?""~",, .......,."'" The 1985 boardinghouse use definition reads: "A building or portion thereof other than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple-family dwelling wherein lodging and/or meals are provided for six (6) or more persons for compensation, which compensation may include mouey, services, or other things of value." Clearly, the Staff exceeds its authority and arbitrarily misreads the plain meaning of the Code, when Staff states as it did above, that the rental of six (6) bedrooms "is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition." Without question, six (6) persons may be lodged overnight in as few as three (3) double occupancy bedrooms, or even a single (1) dormitory bedroom, Moreover, in our opinion, given a plain reading of the words of the 1985 Code, the rental ofzero (0) bedrooms is required by the boardinghouse definition, because in accordance with the specific phrase "and/or" included within that definition, a boardinghouse may provide meals only to at least six (6) persons, As you know, our Sardy House property is for sale and was under contract for several months this spring, That contract was entered into on March 14th and its due diligence period continued past the April effective date of the current moratorium. On or about April 26th, soon after the moratorium began, you told Gwen Dickenson, the representative of a party to our contract, that a building permit could not be issued for a remodel to the boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House due to the moratorium, As I understand it, your reasoning at that point was that this portion of the Sardy House was "a lodge", On April 27th, our attorney David Myler spoke with you and after some discussion of the exemptions included in the moratorium, most specifically the exemption in cases where there would be no increase in square footage, you told him that a building permit could be issued for an interior remodel. At the same time, responding to a separate question, you told him that no change-in-use application could be processed until the moratorium was lifted or expired, We believe that what you told David Myler in April is in accordance with a plain reading of the emergency moratorium ordinance, and it is in accordance with the manner the regulatory effect of the ordinance was reported in local newspapers, We believe the legislative intent of the applicable exemption in the ordinance is very clear, where it is stated that building permits exempt from the moratorium shall include: "Building permits for projects that will not have the effect of increasing the Floor Area of any building." The proposed interior remodel at the Sardy House, a project involving a total floor area of less than eight hundred square feet, will not have the effect of increasing the floor area of any building, -. - ,<,.'...... ,/ On May 12th we met with you and Amy Guthrie and the representative of our contracted buyer, Gwen Dickenson, Quite frankly, we were shocked by the negative and hostile manner in which Staff responded to several questions we asked during this meeting. One might have thought we proposed to "scrape and replace" or otherwise desecrate the Sardy House. Still, the Staff maintained a position essentially in accord with the position you communicated to us earlier in your April discussion with David Myler, insofar as the availability of a building permit for an interior remodel during the moratorium. A change in the total number of bedrooms was discussed and Amy Guthrie stated that we would need to pass a "snifflest" to ensure compliance with the boardinghouse definition, but it appeared clear to us that Staff took the position that the issuance of a building permit for a remodel inside the boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House, without change-of-use or increase in square footage, would not be prohibited by the emergency moratorium ordinance, According to my notes, you specifically stated: "I can't think of anything that would prevent interior walls being tom down," On Monday, May 15th, Gwen Dickenson asked Staff via e-mail a follow-up question: "We need to have one more answer to a question Daniel posed to you in the meeting. Can we get a building permit now to reconfigure the back portion into less bedrooms and more ancillary type rooms that we would have as usage for the boarding house? In the meeting we discussed reducing the total number of bedrooms to maybe 4 in the rear house and the recreational type rooms created. We need to know could we get a building permit now for doing this type of remodel to the back." The following day, May 16t\ Staff responded in writing: "As we discussed at the meeting, we would need to see specific plans and then we could rule on whether a specific plan is acceptable under the current allowances for the building." Later that week, our buyer exercised his right to terminate our contract. On June 2nd, Frank Peters, David Myler and I met with you, Amy Guthrie and John Worcester, the city attorney. One oflhe points we made at that meeting was that when we reconstructed the Sardy House in 1985, after receiving conditional approval for the boardinghouse use, we built out to an FAR of ,75:1, the same FAR then allowed by right in the old Office zone district for a single family dwelling, Staff disputed this particular point, but during that lengthy meeting, we were given no indication that Staffs position of May 16th and earlier had changed, Staff encouraged us to submit specific plans and so we continued to believe that if we submitted specific plans and that if those plans were deemed to fall within the scope of the boardinghouse definition, we might be issued a building permit for an interior remodel in a timely manner. ""'" "-' '" .......~,." On June 9th we submitted specific plans for a remodel of a small part ofthe boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House, floor plans prepared at our expense by architect Harry Teague, We also submitted excerpts ofthe 1985 Code, proving that Staff was incorrect in disputing our point regarding FAR allowed by right 20 years ago in the Office zone district (today the Mixed Use zone district), On July 2nd our attorney David Myler received by mail your memo dated June 29th, including your answer to our question #8, Your answer contained an apparent (albeit illogical) acknowledgment that our specific plans had passed the "snifftest"-but CATCH 22" ,after more than 60 days--during which time period we made Staff well aware that time was of the essence to us--66 days after you told our attorney that a building permit for an interior remodel was not prohibited by the moratorium, your memo informed us that we had essentially wasted our time and money preparing specific plans, Staff took a new position that rendered the submittal of any plans at all an exercise in futility, CATCH 22-you are a conditional use, No later than May 15th, when we specifically discussed this issue with you and Amy, Staff became well aware that the boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House is a conditional use, legally established in 1985 (and today non-conforming,) Moreover, as early as November, 2005, 1 discussed the boardinghouse use in detail with Amy Guthrie, and after our discussion she informed me that Staff discussed the Sardy House at its weekly staff meeting, The crux of the matter is this, After an unduly lengthy period of time, Staff reversed its earlier, documented position, a position supported by a plain reading of the Code and denied us a building permit on broad and technical, ambiguous grounds, We believe that we have been treated unfairly. We believe the Community Development Staff, well-intentioned as it may be, has demonstrated inconsistency, lack of respect for precedent and private property rights, and specifically abused its executive discretion in denying us a building permit for an 800 square foot interior remodel at Sardy House, We believe Staff misinterprets the Code and the legislative intent of the Code in its answer to our question #8 cited above. Yours very truly, Daniel Delano Frank Peters D \ v<\ CU-{~ ~ ,.. -' " GyA ,liJi ;g /1 """. ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRET A TION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: 26.104.100, Definitions; 26.710.180(D)(10)(A)(3), Mixed Use Zone District: Floor Area Ratio; 26.470.040(B)(2), Change- In-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. EFFECTIVE DATE: WRfITENBY, c1\~ APPROVED BY: June 29, 2006 James Lindt, Senior Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: john Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, HP Officer SUMMARY David Myler submitted a request for a code interpretation on behalf of Daniel Delano and Frank Peters (Applicants), the owners of the Sardy House, In the interpretation request, the Applicants ask a series of questions related to how various land use code sections apply to the Sardy House property, PURPOSE Staff has responded to the Applicants' questions in this interpretation and explained the basis for our responses, BACKGROUND The Sardy House existed as a single-family residence from 1893 when it was constructed to,1985, In 1985, the Applicants received approval to remodel and expand the existing structure and a conditional use approval to convert the entire building into a boardinghouse (Boardinghouse is a defined term); The Applicants converted the main residence portion of the structure back into a single residential unit in 2003 with the rear portion of the structure that was added in 1985 remaining as a Boardinghouse, As was discussed above, the Applicants have requested a series of code interpretations related to how the land use code applies to the Sardy House's current situation, This interpretation clarifies the Planning Staffs position on how the requested code sections apply to the Sardy House, 1'''' ~ "" , DISCUSSION Questions 1,2,5,6,7, and 8 Staff has organized our responses to the questions posed by the Applicants in topics, Questions No, 1,2,5,6,7, and 8 relate to the definition of "Boardinghouse" in the City's Land Use Code, Below, Staff has listed these questions and the applicable corresponding interpretation: 1. What definition (1985 definition when the conditional use for a boardinghouse was approved or current definition in the land use code) of boardinghouse applies to the current and future use of the Carriage House (rear addition that is currently approved to be used as a boardinghouse)? Staff Response: The 1985 definition of "Boardinghouse" in the land use code applies to the Sardy House because that was the definition in place when a site-specific approval was granted to allow the Sardy House tobecome a boardinghouse, This approval is what the Carriage House portion of the structure is still operating under today, 2. What is the effect of simply discontinuing the current nonconforming boardinghouse use? Does a discontinuance of a nonconforming use require a development order? Staff Response: The Applicant could discontinue the nonconforming boardinghouse use on the Carriage House part of the structure, but that it could not be used as part of any other use to replace the boardinghouse use until a development order for a change in use is obtained. Staff is of this opinion because Land Use Code Section 26.470,040(B)(2), Change-In-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, states that a change of use, between the use categories identified in Section 26,470,020 (Residential-Free Market, Residential- Affordable Housing, Commercial, Lodging, and Essential Public Facilities), of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as a Historic Landmark shall be reviewed based on the criteria set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.470,040(B)(2), 5, Does the replacement of a non-conforming use (boardinghouse- under any definition) with a conforming use (single-family), with no increase in the floor area of the existing structure in which those uses are contained, constitute a change in use? Staff Response: As is discussed in Staff s response to Question #2 above, the code requires that when you change the use of a structure or a part of a structure amongst the use categories identified in Land Use Code Section 26.470,020 (Residential- Free Market, Residential- Affordable Housing, Commercial, Lodging, and Essential Public Facilities), a change in use approval is required, Staff is not aware of any language in the land use code that would exempt an existing non-conforming use from this requirement and thus, a change in use approval is ,,.-" "- required to convert the portion of the Sardy House that is operating as boardinghouse to a single-family residential use, 6, To what extent can boardinghouse uses be reduced before such use would be deemed abandoned? For example, could a small portion of the Sardy House, sufficient to provide meals for 6 or more people, be open to the public for such purposes one week per year? Staff Response: The 1985 definition of boardinghouse reads as follows: Boardinghouse, rooming house, dormitory- A building or portion of thereof other than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple-family dwelling wherein lodging and/or meals are provided for six (6) or more persons for compensation, which compensation may include money, services, or other things of value, For the boardinghouse use to remain active, it must be available to six (6) or more persons for rental as lodging for the majority of the year. Because the definition references lodging of people, the units contained within the Carriage House must be available for overnight lodging on a short-term basis, which by definition of lodging under today's land use code does not allow for it to be occupied by anyone person or entity that is an owner for more than 30 consecutive days or more than 90 days in any calendar year. 7, As long as at least 6 individuals are provided with overnight lodging and/or meals in the Carriage House, for compensation, would a corporate retreat or vacation club type use be consistent with a boardinghouse use under the 1985 definition? Staff Response: If it can be demonstrated that a corporate retreat or vacation club type use of the Carriage House provides overnight lodging and meals on a short-term basis for 6 or more people or entities at a time, it would be permitted under the 1985 definition of boardinghouse, However, the definition of boardinghouse requires a boardinghouse to provide lodging for people that should turnover, so Staff would further interpret that the boardinghouse units ifused for a corporate retreat should not be occupied by anyone person or entity for more than 30 consecutive days and 90 days out of a calendar year as the definition of lodge requires in the current land use code, 8, Please advise as to whether a building permit could be issued without a change- in-use approval to eliminate three bedrooms and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens into an open common area as shown on the attached plans (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"), The premise behind this request is that the Carriage House portion of the structure would remain a boardinghouse because it is would still provide lodging and/or meals for more than six (6) people, with the new kitchen and dining space being accessory to the boardinghouse use, - ....I Staff Response: The proposed plans would still allow for the Carriage House structure to remain in compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse use definition, If the interior changes proposed in the attached plans were made, there would still be more than six (6) bedrooms in the Carriage House for rental as part of the boardinghouse use as is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition, However, enacting this plan would require an amendment to the approved conditional use plan that was originally established. A conditional use amendment requires submittal of a land use application, which is prohibited in the Mixed Use Zone District until the expiration of the current land use application moratorium that was enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 19, Series of2006, Questions 3 and 4 Questions 3 and 4 in the interpretation request relate to the provisions of Land Use Code Section 26,710,180(D)(10)(A), Mixed Use Zone District: Floor Area Ratio, Below Staff has listed these questions and have provided answers based on our understanding of the land use code provisions: 3, There is no definition of "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" in the Land Use Code, There is a definition for "Dwelling - Multi-Family", Under that definition, a single-family dwelling can be considered a multi-family dwelling if a portion of it is used for retail, office or service commercial uses, Absent such an additional use, a single-family dwelling should never be considered to be Free-Market Multi-Family Housing, With respect to the applicability of Section 26.7l0,180(D)(10) of the Aspen Municipal Code (Mixed Use - Floor Area Ratio), as amended by Ordinance No. 12, Series of2006, under what circumstances could the Sardy House be considered "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" as that term is used in Subsection 10(A)(3)? Staff Response: Based on the text of these defined terms, the single-family residential portion of the structure is not considered multi-family housing as the uses in the structure are currently recognized, because the boardinghouse use that is on the same parcel is not considered' retail, office, or service commercial, but rather is considered lodging, That said, if the Applicant would like to maintain the boardinghouse use in a portion of the structure meeting the requirements of the 1985 definition of a boardinghouse as is discussed in Staff's response to Question #6 above, the single-family residential use combined with the boardinghouse use of the Sardy House would have a cumulative allowable FAR of 1: I as the Applicants have suggested, 4, If the Sardy House (Main Residence and Carriage House) is not considered Free- Market Multi-Family Housing, but continues to include a boardinghouse use component along with a predominantly single-family use, would not the allowable floor area for the combined single-family and boardinghouse uses be based upon a floor area ratio of 1: I? Such a combination of uses does not fall within any categories described in Subsections 1 O(A)(1), (2), or (3), or I 0(B)(1) ,...... "-' -,",--,,# or (2), of the Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio Regulations, Thus, the only floor area limit in such a case is the I: 1 floor area ratio which applies in the Main Street Historic District (see second sentence of Subsection IO(A) of such regulations), Staff Response: The combined use as a single-family residence and a boarding house has a total FAR of 1:1 as is discussed in Staff's response to Question #3 above, That said, if the entire structure were to be converted to a single-family residential dwelling unit as the only use on the site, it would be subject to the allowable dimensional requirements for a single- family dwelling unit in the R-6 Zone District as is established in Land Use Code Section 26,71 O.180(D)(1 O)(B), FAR Schedule for single-family and duplex uses when developed as the only use of the parcel. This interpretation is based on the provisions of the land use code that are currently in place and which are subject to change before the moratorium is lifted or expires. APPEAL OF DECISION As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision or any part of this decision to the Aspen City CounciL This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item. 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed, Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination, ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Request for Interpretation Exhibit "B"- Proposed Carriage House Remodel Plans (' \...... :) &i1I'b,} Ie II ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: 26.104.100, Definitions; 26.710.180(D)(10)(A)(3), Mixed Use Zone District: Floor Area Ratio; 26.470.040(B)(2), Change- In-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2006 WRfTIEN BY' eM ~ APPROVED BY: \ Mt1 James Lindt, Senior Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, HP Officer SUMMARY David Myler submitted a request for a code interpretation on behalf of Daniel Delano and Frank Peters (Applicants), the owners of the Sardy House, In the interpretation request, the Applicants asked a series of questions related to how various land use code sections apply to the Sardy House property, Staff responded to the request and issued an interpretation on June 29, 2006 (attached as Exhibit "A"), After issuance of the interpretation, the Applicants met with Staff and expressed that they believed some of the responses provided in the original interpretation were inappropriate, As a result of the meeting, Staff reviewed the responses provided in the June 29th interpretation and decided to issue this supplemental interpretation to correct several of the responses provided in the original interpretation, PURPOSE This is a supplemental interpretation to correct the land use code interpretation issued on June 29, 2006, With the exception of Staffs amended responses to questions 6 and 7 and the addition of a response to the newly posed question 9 provided herein, all other portions of the interpretation issued on June 29, 2006 shall remain in effect. This interpretation is based on the provisions of the land use code that are currently in place and which are subject to change before the moratorium is lifted or expires. -. '''' /.., BACKGROUND As discussed above, Staff is issuing this supplemental interpretation to revise our responses to questions 6 and 7 discussed in the original land use code interpretation dated June 29, 2006, INTERPRETATION The responses to questions 6 and 7 below shall completely replace the responses to provided in the original interpretation: 6, To what extent can boardinghouse uses be reduced before such use would be deemed abandoned? For example, could a small portion of the Sardy House, sufficient to provide meals for 6 or more people, be open to the public for such purposes one week per year? Staff Response: The 1985 definition of boardinghouse reads as follows: Boardinghouse, rooming house, dormitory- A building or portion of thereof other than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple-family dwelling wherein lodging and/or meals are provided for six (6) or more persons for compensation, which compensation may include money, services, or other things of value, For the boardinghouse use to remain active, it must be available to six (6) or more persons for rental as lodging for the majority of the year and/or for preparation and serving of food for six (6) or more persons for the majority of the year, The definition does not define whether the lodging to be provided as part of the boardinghouse use has to be short-term or long-term, Therefore, long-term lodging would be permitted under this definition, However, the lodging and/or meal preparation/service must be available for the majority of the year and not just one week per year because the boardinghouse use is the principal recognized use for the carriage house portion of the structure, 7, As long as at least 6 individuals are provided with overnight lodging and/or meals in the Carriage House, for compensation, would a corporate retreat or vacation club type use be consistent with a boardinghouse use under the 1985 definition? Staff Response: If it can be demonstrated that a corporate retreat or vacation club type use of the Carriage House provides overnight lodging and/or meals for 6 or more people at a time, it would be permitted under the 1985 definition of boardinghouse, Once again, the lodging and/or meal preparation/service must be available for the majority of the year and not just one week per year because the boardinghouse use is the principal recognized use for the carriage house portion of the structure, The Applicants also posed an additional question of Staff at the meeting on July 7, 2006, This additional question and Staffs response are included below: I"'"" \,."". 9, Land Use Code Section 26.4l5,070(A), Development involving designated historic property: Exempt development, reads that "selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or plastering similar to the exterior finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work", Does this mean that interior remodeling on a historic property is completely exempt from all of the provisions of the land use code? Staff Response: This land use code section was intended to exempt interior remodeling from review by the Historic Preservation Commission, but not from all of the other provisions in the land use code. When the statement in the question is taken in the context of the remainder of the land use code section in which it is located, it is evident that it only provides an exemption from the HPC review processes. All of Land Use Code Section 26.415,070 describes the HPC review processes, but does not discuss the other provisions of the land use code such as growth management and subdivision, Exemptions from growth management and subdivision are specifically outlined within the respective growth management and subdivision sections of the land use code and not within Land Use Code Section 26.415. . APPEAL OF DECISION As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision or any part of this decision to the Aspen City CounciL This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item, 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed, Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination, ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A"- Interpretation Issued on June 29, 2006 c ~ &l1lk,t \tiJ THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P .C. ADMITTED IN CO', Ny'), IT 211 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 20 1 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-0456 FACSIMILE (970)927-0374 DAVID J. MVLER' ROBYN J. MYLER'" A Colorado Professional Corporation CHERR. VINCENT,PARALEGAL CONNlEA WOOD,LEGALAssISTANT EMAILS dmyler@myterlawpo"om nnyler@mylcrlawp;.com cvincent@mylerlawpc.com cwood@mytcrlawpc.com June 9, 2006 James Lindt Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Via Hand Deliverv RE: Request for Code Interpretation - Sardy House Dear James: I am writing on behalf of Daniel Delano and Frank Peters as the owners of Sardy House, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company which owns the Sardy House in Aspen. As we discussed on June 1,2006, Daniel and Frank have a number of questions regarding the use and occupancy of the Sardy House which require an interpretation of the City's Land Use Regulations. The following is a briefhistol)' of the Sardy House which contains certain facts and circumstances that are pertinent to the questions which follow. 1. The Sardy House was initially built in 1893 as a large single. family home. It was used in that manner for 92 years, under several owners. 2. In 1985, the Sardy House was purchased by North and South Aspen, LLC ("North & South"), the predecessor to Sardy House, LLC, which was also owned by Daniel and Frank. At that time, the Sardy House was zoned office. A single-family home was an allowed use by right in that zone district. Boardinghouse was a conditional use. 3. The maximum floor area for anv allowed or conditional use within the Office Zone District in 1985 was based upon a floor area ratio of ,75:1. (A copy of 1985 Area and Bulk Requirements is attached.) Since the Sardy House site contains 17,744 square feet ofland, a single- family residence containing 13,308 square feet would have been allowed by right. 4, In 1985, North & South obtained a condition use approval from the Aspen Planning Commission to operate the Sardy House as a boardinghouse. Based upon that approval, the Main Residence was extensively remodeled and a new addition, referred to as the "Carriage House," was constructed. The total floor area of the Main Residence and Carriage House was 13,075 square feet, as measured under the 1985 Land Use Code, which includes some subgrade square footage which Am. ADDRESS: 106 SoUTH MIlL STREET, SUITl! 202 r"' '-" - _e THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. James Lindt June 9, 2006 Page 2 would not be included in the current Code. The definition of boardinghouse as set forth in the 1985 Land Use Code (copy attached) allowed the owners to provide short- or long-term lodging and/or meals to 6 or more guests. 5. The Sardy House, including the Carriage House, was used and operated as a boardinghouse, as that term was defined in the 1985 Land Use Code, from the completion of remodeling activities in 1985 unti12003. In that year, North & South obtained an administrative approval to change the use of the Main Residence from boardinghouse to single family. In reliance upon that approval, North & South invested over $3, million in remodeling and repair to the Main Residence and the Carriage House. While the operation ofthe Sardy House since 1985 may also be consistent with that of a hotel or a bed and breakfast, it was not approved for either of those uses. In, fact, in order to qualify as a boardinghouse, the Sardy House caIUlOt be a hotel or bed and breakfast. Since the completion of the aforementioned remodeling and repair work, the Main Residence has been utilized as a single-family residence and the Carriage House has been utilized as a boardinghouse pursuant to the 1985 definition. Questions: I. What definition of boardinghouse applies to the current and future use ofthe Carriage House? We do not know when or why the 1985 definition was amended, but the current definition imposes more stringent requirements than the earlier definition. Furthermore, when the Sardy House property was rezoned in 2005 from office to mixed use, boardinghouse was not included as an allowed use or a conditional use. Clearly, the boardinghouse use is nonconforming, but since the use has continued, unabated, since it was approved in 1985, it would seem that the 1985 definition should continue to apply for the purpose of determining whether the boardinghouse component of the Sardy House is in compliance with the Land Use Code. 2, What is the effect of simply discontinuing the current nonconforming boardinghouse use? Does a discontinuance of a nonconforming use require a Development Order? 3, With respect to the applicability of Section 26.710 .l80.D.l 0 of the Aspen Municipal Code (Mixed Use - Floor Area Ratio), as amended by Ordinance No. 12, Series of2006, under what circumstances could the Sardy House be considered "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" as that term is used in Subsection 10.A.3.? There is no definition of "Free-Market Multi-Family Housing" in the Land Use Code, There is a definition for "Dwelling - Multi-Family." Under that definition, a single-farnilydwelling can be considered a multi-family dwelling ifa portion of it is used for retail, office or service commercial uses. Absent such an additional use, a single-family dwelling should never be considered to be Free-Market Multi-Family Housing. 4, If the Sardy House (Main Residence and Carriage House) is not considered Free- Market Multi-Family Housing, but continues to include a boardinghouse use component along with a predominantly single-family use, would not the allowable floor area for the combined single-family and boardinghouse uses be based upon a floor area ratio of 1 : I? Such a combination of uses does I"'"'- ''"-' ,.", THE MYLER LAW FIRM. P.C. James Lindt June 9,2006 Page 3 not fall within any of the categories described in Subsections 10.A.1, 2 or 3, or 10.B.1 or 2, of the Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio Regulations. Thus, the only floor area limit in such a case is the I: I floor area ratio which applies in the Main Street Historic District (see second sentence of Subsection lOA. of such Regulations. 5. Does the replacement of a non-conforming use (boardinghouse - under any definition) with a conforming use (single family), with no increase in the floor area of the existing structure in which those uses are contained, constitute a change in use? 6. To what extent can boardinghouse uses be reduced before such use would be deemed abandoned? For example, could a small portion of the Sardy House, sufficient to provide meals for 6 or more people, be open to the public for such purposes one week per year? 7. As long as at least 6 individuals are provided with overnight lodging and/or meals in the Carriage House, for compensation, would a corporate retreat or vacation club type use be consistent with a boardinghouse use under the 1985 definition? 8. I have included with this letter a set of plans for an interiorremodel that adds no floor area and which does not contemplate a change in use from that currently approved (single-family and boardinghouse). Please advise as to whether a building permit may be issued for the remodeling work at this time. lIDs example plan shows elimination of three bedrooms and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens into an open common area. We greatly appreciate the time and energy that you are devoting to this matter and we look forward to your response. Very truly yours, By: Enclosure cc: John Worcester , 1. -" '\ c r\ ,."" ~ " t=xMI'b l'-t \"[ rl IIIlIlOlW!DtJIII RE. Aspen planning and zoning Commission Colette penne, Planning Office Sardy Bouse - Conditional Q~e April 2, 1985 TO. FROM. DATE. s~===========~===z==.==....=========~=.========.=.c===.============~.= .' "..._,.....,..._..._ ._,.._..._.....,.,__..~..'..~,...,'".-.."., .,.......,..-.'....0..,.;.; "'.",~"" -.' '';;,,'" .' LOCA'fIOR. 128 E. Main Street. ZORIRG. Lots P, Q, Rand S, and 25 feet of F, G, B and I, Block 66, plus the entire ar~!1 of th.e v,~g..l~.a..}!.lJey. o - Office and R-6 APPLICART'S JP!QUES'f: The app1 icant is requesting conditional use approval to renovate the Barely Bouse and to build new structures, all to be used as a Bed' andilJea~fa~tLO<lge. B'ACII:GROURD AND RBVIElh The, Sardy Bouse at 128 E. Main Street is indivi\lually . designated as an 'h'rstoric.~j;~!'~I!ttL!!!. ~!!!.!~ptiona1' category. Because of this de~ignation, both a change trom residential to a lodging use and expansion of the stru"ttgea,~e_<txl1l!lpt from Change in Use review and GMP competition according to Section 24-11.2tb). That section reads that 'The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the a1lo,tment procedures hereinatte~ provided for (b) The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received. individ~a1 h~_s,t?_~l:.(L.a.~~ignation." The intention of the Office, zone is "to provide for ,the,estabUshment of offices and assocla,t"d~g9m!!!,~i:c~~_ti~!S, ill J'.~(:I1a w"y as to' pr:ei,ervii the visual sca,le ani! ch!!rac\'.eL ot,ro~m~~r}yresidentia1 ,ar,,,as that now are adjacen~ to commercial !llld b\l~Jne,!!!!, atea..~ ~a..r!i! ,.&~llg Main St reet and other h1gh volume thoroughfares." A 'boardlng house" is listed as a Conditional Ose with the condition that all conditional uses in the Off ice zone shall be" conside;"ecf;' .." ., '. .' "~"'C.".- .','.""'- "-""_"~,,,".,4,,,,......;<,,,,,-,",""',,,".~ ,.#.<If...<..,,,_.;..~~,,,,,...:Jt,.,,,-~;.~,. "(1) only for structures which have rec~iy~_d_~;!to~~,q.~~~i~ation; (2) for no more than two (2) such conditiol'lal llses _i~ eacl1 structure (not, incl u\ling within s"cl)lim.!~l!:S{9ri.,~5i.~,E!.~,s,gry"dWelrfng'" uni ts recognized as moderate, incom"e, hOU~,;,ng by an approved housing plan); and ' , (3! only when off-street parking is provided with alley access for those conditional "ses along Main Street.' The Planning Office feels tl)at ,lI ,Il,e.9,..,lI!!.i!_Bre",ktas): operation is quite analagous to a boarding house lInd fits t'iie"" iJi1;'enHon of, the zone. This application 111,socQml'lies with tjI,e tIIreii'provisfons 'above fo.r Conditional Ose in the Office zone district. . ,. ..,. . -....~--"..',~.'"...,-~.__.,."':.....~.~'.""--.'."..,."-~ Section 24-3.3 (1)) Qf the.,!I!!ll~9pa1 Code set, ,tl1,e ,,~U!'.!;,!!.f.!'r.. 1\, grant of Conditional Ose in all zone distri"ts and the consideration of its suitability as. " '.. ,.",,', ,.....-..-", '-~'.....~"-"'"".,....,,''"'" '(1) Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all require- ments imposed by the zoning code; t 2) Whether the proposed USE! is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this zoning code and .the applicable zoning district; and c"~' .... , , ,,-. ,"'" ; '- ("\ t l' , (3) If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surround- ing land uses and uses in the area." In terms of Area and Bulk, Requirements, the proposal conforms with the zoning code. The lot area l.s, 17,400 s. f. and the existing house is 4,007 s. f. The tO,tal !tI1)olll)t of proposed new construction is 6,506 s. f. for a total build-out of 10,513 s. f. This ,is a floot areatatio of .60.1 and the Office zone:'sFI'.!LiS,7_5'l,!!lth,,}I'pOssl'bl'ebOnus'uP to 1.1. with all the~uild-outthat will Decouneeo in FAR, the total will be about .65.1.(. Total number of guestroO'mswn1.ce'nine double- occupancy roams and one parlour suite in the m,ain 11."1l~,!" ,and ten [ooot in the proposed addition. ' , The use is consistent with tlle objectiVes ,and purposes of the Office zone, however, the area whicll is zon,ed R-6 does not ,allow fO,r the Bed and Breakfast use. The, strip whichisionec'l"Il.:6....!lisituated totlie north of the vaca,tedalley. 'Mr. Sarely sofd' tll,r"noi:th 15f"eel: Of LO'\:'S F, G, H and I over 25 years ago (prior tCl requirementsf"r sUb<livisi(fi~f. He then had the ,al1",y vacated through the adoption of OrdinanCe 12, adopted on March 6, 1961. Since he ownJ'd t:h:e property on both sid'es of the alley, the entire area of the vacat'edalley became part of his parcel. When the zoning w'as 'subEieq"uently placed on the block, the division line between R-6 and 0 - Office was the alley, so this 25 foot piece was lert in the R':6 ZOI;>... ' The applicant'S representatives point out that in Section 24-3.2(d) there may be an approach to making the al teration in the zoning line without completing a full rezoning process. That Code section reads as follows. "24-2.3 Interpretation of the zoning district map. When, due to the scale, lack or detail or illegibility of the zoning district map, there is any uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the intended location of any zoning district boundary as ,shown thereon; 'tne bul.:rain'f i!.spector shall make an interpretation of said mspupon request of any person, and any person aggrieved by any such interpretation may appeal the same to the planning and zoning commission. The buil~i,ng inspector and planning and zoning commission, in interpreting the map or deciding any appeal, shall apply the following standards: (a) The zoning district boundary lines are int,ended to follow lot lines, or be parallel or perpendicular thereto, or along the center lines of alleys, streets, rights-of-way or water courses, unless such boundary lines are fixed dimensi()n!'"sh~no'!>the,.m,!\p. tb) where zoning district boqndary lines are so indicated that they approximately follow lot lines, such lot line~ shall be COnS1:[11ed to"Il!'j:h_!'_~u,'!qary lines. (c) Where a zoni11g district boundary line, divides a lot, the location ,of such boundary line, unless indicated by dimensions shown on the "zoning map, shall be determined by the use of the map sc'iife'"shown thereon. (dl If, after application of th,e foregoing rules, uncertainty still exists as to the exact. 10catioll,Of a, zoning district boundary, 'the ifn-e shii1Toe dete-mIneo-ma reasonable manner, considering the hlstory"""CThe city's zoning ordinances and amendments,' and, other factors as sl)all b~dEt~~g. ,F~;,~vant:.. ~ e"_. . .>.... The planning Office does not believe that, ,the above sec~ion applies to this case. The attached c!:l,P.\' of the ionincj'niap"G.drca'i:es'''that the,re is no problem in interpreting the scale, detail or legibil ity of the line. Instead, we feel that the portions of Lots F, G, H and I should be subject to a formal rezoning application and be considered re~~t!Ye 2 ,.' ... , I" ( .r , to the criteria of section,24-12,.5. Should you concur with this analysis, a Commission n;'embei" sho!ll~ ,sponsor the rezoning. However, until the rezoning procedure is accomplished, the Conditional Use permit for the entire site can~otbe' granted. Returning to our review of the cd teria fO,r COnditional use, permits, the use should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It is situated at a very busy intersection ana' has public and commercial uses surrounding it. The clinic and library are to the west, lit. Bell's offices are to the north and GraCy's 'fa to the east. The northwest corner of Block 66 is occupied"!)y a multi-family structure and 'the or ientation of the sardy' property is toward the, sO,uth" ,/illd east. TO the northeast is the rectory for the Communitythurch. The proposal includes bOth a parking solution and an employee housing solution. Eight (8) parking spaces are tg ~~ provided and the Engineer- ing Department finds that number to b~ ~dequate for this project. The spaces will be provided as si'x (6) grouna'l~vel cover~d spaces beneath the new building and two (2) spaces at tb,~,we,st e,nd of the vacated alley. The employee generation is, eJ<pected to be twelve (12) persons in the summer and winter seasons and six (6) on a year-round basis. El1Iployee housing units to b~"j?'i"oviClecCriie'f'tide 'one (1) studio, one (1) one-bedroom unit, and onE!' (1) two-bedroom unit. The Housing Authority does not specificallyieview this application because of its exemption from GIIP and Ch,ange' in Use, but through the referral process, they complimented the applicant for addressing the need. The Historic preservationComnlittee has reviewed the plans on a preliminary basis and they were"enfii'1/'s'iiisHc abo'iit'fhe"concept and the plans. Removal of the exist,ing garage and adarnon;,' 'Ot .carriage house" type structures we're :!iolutions they found to be cO!l'patible. They will be reviewing the plans further as they progress in detail. PLAJlRIRG OFPIC,E RBCOIIJllBRDA'l'IOR. The Planning Office recommends approval and 'the gr'iiiiHiig""c;t'-a'i!6ridltloiial' use permit for a Bed and Breakfast bgarding house use in the Sardy House, as presented, with the following conditions: 1. Rezoning of the south 2,5 f~ej;",o.!'.LP_",,~.,F, ,G.. H and I from R-6 to 0 _ Office must, be accanplishea bef,ore "permit is issued for construction o~ tb~~~(1<?~fl. 2. The facility must be a liC;$!l,~ed ,F20c! ,~~rviC;~ est~blishment and must Q9mply with the R~!B ~d,~ega1atloD8'GOverniD9'the Sanitation of pood Service EBta6lIBbaentB in the State of Colol'a.do~"."'" -,,' "..- .- ",,-',-',". .'".....,......__'."'".._....'-...;;.~.ar~.~.f,'4,:.~.:.4i:,:<,,:.:.,. '.,_,>_i'~~';::.::.-:~,,""'" '/-.-'-"" ", 3. The City's Air Pollution Ordinance must be met. 4. Construction noise, dust and mud C;arry-out must be minimized and Chapter 16 of the Code complied with. 5. Trash storage and removal must be approved by the Engineering Department. " 6. Removal and relocatIon of the two (2) fruit trees must be done in accordance' wi fliSecE'fon 13'-i6'oCtiie CO(fe. 3 _.__..____ -"----. :-.r-.----.- C fi n~' CITY OF' ASPEN 130 south aspen, col 303-$ llena street rado 81611 5-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM DArE SUBMITTED February 19, 1985 FEES NAME Lake Forest Renovators, Inc. ADDRESS 626 Sheridan Square. Evanston, lL 60202 PHONE (~12) 475-8282 NAME OF PROJECT Sardy House FRESENT ZONING LOT SIZE 128 E. Main St., Aspen, Colorado tHoU Lot~ S R. Q, P and S. 25 feet of F, G, H, and I Block 6~ and the adjoining alley according to the (indicate street address, lot and block number. May require legal description. A vicinity map is very useful.' records of Pitkin County. LOCATION CURRENT BUILD-OUT sq. ft. units PROPOSED BUILD-OUT sq. ft. units DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL Adaptive reuse of one of the nost pyominent and respected Victorian buildings in Aspen by" creatin~ 10-12 ele~ant rooms, each with private bath faci1itiE The oroiec.t wilt be a Bed & Breakfast operation. The parlour, livingroom, entry hall and front stairway will remain completely intact and every effort will be made to keep as much of the existing interior as possible. The exterior will be virtually unchanged on the MainSt. and Aspen St. sides. . (More elaborate plans anet ete.scr~pt:~on W~~.1 follow.) TYPE OF APPLICATION Conditional Use APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S) PLAT AHENDMENT REQUIRED DATE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMPLETED 24-33 YES ___NO ATTACHNENTS: 1. Ail applican"ts must supply Proof of Ownership in the form of a title insurance commitmf'; or statement from an attorney indicating "that he/she has researct I the title and verifias that the applicant is the owner of the pro~ .ty (free of liens and eucumbrances.' 2. If the process requires must be supplied which g directions in some cases public hearing, a Property Owner's List 'es all owners 'Within 300 feet in all ~nd adjacent owners in some cases. 3. Number of copies required (by code and/or in pre-application conference. ) 4. Plat by Registered Surveyor Yes No Message " I '" '""' Page I of2 0x/A. \ 'j{) /+ \ '( )1 . " James Lindt From: James Lindt Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:49 AM To: 'Gwen' Subject: RE, Sardy House Question Gwen, I can't. We need to see a ~<illic;.plan, Sorry, Thanks, James From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@rof.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:37 AM To: James Lindt Subject: RE: Sardy House Question I understand that, James, but this is a big gamble for a maybe, Can you give me an indication if bedrooms could be lost for recreational type facilities in the rear and go from 8 bedrooms to 3 or 4? Thanks, Gwen -----Original Message----- From: James Lindt [mailto:jamesl@ci.aspen,co.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:20 AM To: Gwen Subject: RE: Sardy House Question Gwen, As we discussed at th.. m....ting,. we_would need 10 see specific plans and then we could ryle.JJJL whether a specific plan is acceptable u nde! th!currEmt allo~clOces for the bul)ding, --- Thanks, James From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@rof,net] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:22 PM To: James Lindt; Amy Guthrie Cc: delano@sardyhouse,com; Morris@sopris.net; 'Sean de Moraes' Subject: RE: Sardy House Question Dear James, Thanks so much for your quick response, We need to have one more answer to a question Daniel posed to you in the meeting, Can we get a building permit now to reconfigure the back portion into less bedrooms and more ancillary type rooms that we would have as usage for the boarding house? In the meeting we discussed reducin the total number of hedrnnmo tg maybe4in.itle.rear house and the recrea lanai tvpe rooms created, We need to_k~VJ,~oLJicJ..vv~get~,b...L'i19inJVlerrnitnovd()r, dOing this type of remodel to the back, --,- I hank you so much, Gwen -----Original Message----- From: James Lindt [mailto:jamesl@ci.aspen,co.us] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:04 PM To: delano@sardyhouse.com; Gwen 8/14/2006 Message 8/14/2006 ,I""" '- ......, - Cc: Amy Guthrie; Chris Bendon; John Worcester Subject: Sardy House Question Daniei and Gwen, Please let this e-mail serve as a response to the question that you posed to us in writing on Friday, On Friday May 121h, you posed to us the following handwritten question related to the Sardy House: "Given the unique circumstances of the existing historic landmark Sardy House, is there a way to arrive at a prospective buyer's goal to preserve the exterior of the property as is, without increase of existing square footage, with use of the whole property by one family or an extended family and with no commerciai use?" At Friday's meeting, you indicated that you needed an answer to the above question by the end of the day on May 15th because your buyer's due-diligence deadline was expiring, Given the short timeframe we have had to discuss the issue as a staff, the only review process that we are aware of that you could apply for to convert the entire structure into a single-family residence is an administrative change-in-use for a historic property (land Use Code Section 26.470,070(B)(2)), coupled with a Board of Adjustment variance (land Use Code Section 26,314) to legalize the existing FAR of the building for a single-family residence, We could not approve a change-in-use of the back portion of the building to be part of the single-family residence without the Board of Adjustment approving a dimensional requirement variance because converting the entire property to a single-family residence without a dimensional requirement variance would increase a non-conformity related to FAR. The reason that converting the entire structure to a single-family residence would increase the non-conformity is that the Mixed Use Zone District in which the property is located has a much higher allowable FAR for a mixed use project than it does for a single-family residence pursuant to land Use Code Section 26,710,180, Therefore, converting the entire buiiding to a single-family residence would lower the allowable FAR on the parcel, thereby increasing the extent to which the existing structure Is over the allowable FAR, which is not permitted pursuant to land Use Code Section 26,312, So you could apply for a Board of Adjustment variance and a change-In-use after the 6-month moratorium on new land use applications expires in October, Staff will not provide you with a recommendation on such an application at this time and will only render a recommendation once a full application has been submitted for review after the moratorium, However, please note that a Board of Adjustment variance from allowabie dimensional requirements can only be granted by the Board of Adjustment if they find that the allowable dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant related to the land subject to the application, The answer to your question provided in this e-mail is based on current zoning, which is subject to change, This e-mail does not create a legal or vested right. Regards, James Lindt Senior Planner City of Aspen Page 2 of2 ^.~ "......' # ElA,~)' ~\~// James Lindt From: Sent: To: Subject: James Lindt Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1 :38 PM 'David Myler' RE: FW: Sardy House Thanks David. We will have an interpretation for you within 30 days of your submittal requesting interp. -----Original Message----- From: David Myler [mailto:dmyler@mylerlawpc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:02 AM To: James Lindt Subject: FW: FW: Sardy House James: See below email from Daniel Delano. David J, Myler The Myler Law Firm, P.C. 211 Midland Avenue, Suite 201 Basalt, CO 81621 106 S, Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (9701 927-0456 Fax: (9'101 927-0374 dmyler@mylerlawpc.com *********************************************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney work-product, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message in not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via e-mail or the United States Parcel Service. The typewritten signature included with this e-mail is not an electronic signature within the meaning of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act or any other law of similar import, including, without limitation, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as it may be enacted by any state of the District of Columbia. ~----Original Message----- From: Daniel Delano [mailto:delano@sardyhouse.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:16 PM To: David Myler Subject: Re: FW: Sardy House Dave: The answer to James's question is that after three bedrooms are converted into common area (as shown on the plan we submitted) there will be a total of nine bedrooms remaining in the boardinghouse, although one of the bedrooms currently is furnished with a sofabed rather than a standard bed and one bedroom is currently being used for storage. Thanks, Daniel 1 (". -- /~'" ......1 > Daniel: > > For your information. > > > David J. Myler > > The Myler Law Firm, P.C. > > 211 Midland Avenue, Suite 201 > > Basalt, CO 81621 > > 106 S, Mill Street, Suite 202 > > Aspen, Colorado 81611 > > Phone: (970) 927-0456 > > Fax: (970) 927-0374 > > dmyler@mylerlawpc.com > > ********************************************************************** > * > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > > This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it > is addressed and may contain information that is attorney > work-product, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure > under applicable law. If the reader of this message in not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately by telephone and return > the original message to us at the above address via e-mail or the United ~ States Parcel Service. The typewritten signature included with this e-mail > is not an electronic signature within the meaning of the Electronic > Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act or any other law of similar > import, including, without limitation, the Uniform Electronic Transactions > Act as it may be enacted by any state of the District of Columbia. > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Lindt [mailto:jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:41 PM > To: dmyler@mylerlawpc.com > Subject: Sardy House > > > > Hi David, > > I am preparing to take your request for interpretation to our staff > meeting for initial feedback on the questions you have posed in the > interpretation request. Related to the final question you ask about > the proposed remodel plans, do you know how many bedrooms this would > leave them with in the Carriage House annex that are to be used as > boardinghouse? > > > > Thanks, > > James > 2 , ......,.~". /"- ""'- ,l .. 1 - ~~ ~C.,,~ i~: "'11 T~ 1-:--:'-) ," lu t: I j I ~ \. ~ ..3 ,'....c.. 'fi :''''WL).;# f' 1 ' ^,'n'- iJ ':r LUJO Mr. James Lindt, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department A0;-~t;'J i'llll j',p,;('" ncr;;\:-'''':''~I\""\'7 .~~.j)_'_>""~ '.;'~' ."0\:"': ::"'-:-:':: August 14, 2006 Hand Delivered Re: APPEAL OF STAFF OPINION REGARDING SARDY HOUSE Dear James: Thank you for the time you have devoted to this complex and serious matter, Please understand that while we may refer herein to you and to the city planning staff collectively in somewhat negative terms, we feel no personal animosity. We realize the work of city planners is difficult and often thankless, At your request, this letter is to give an account of some of the ways we believe the Aspen Community Development Staff has abused its executive discretion and failed to extend due process to us as owners of the Sardy House, particularly in the Staffs answer to our Question #8, regarding the processing of a building permit for a limited remodel of the Sardy House--with no change to the exterior of the existing structure and no increase in square footage--during the current Moratorium, Our Question #8 was: "Please advise as to whether a building permit could be issued without a change-in- use approval to eliminate three bedrooms and baths from the upper floor of the north wing (boardinghouse annex) and relocation of one of the lower floor kitchens into an open common area as shown on the attached plans. The premise behind this request is that the Carriage House portion ofthe structure would remain a boardinghouse because it would still provide lodging and/or meals for more than six (6) people, with the new kitchen and dining space being accessory to the boardinghouse use." The Staff response was: "The proposed plan would still allow for the Carriage House structure to remain in compliance with the 1985 boardinghouse use definition. If the interior changes proposed in the attached plans were made, there would still be more than six (6) bedrooms iu the Carriage House for rental as is required by the 1985 boardinghouse definition. However, enacting this plan would require an amendment to the approved conditional use plan that was originally established. A conditional use amendment requires submittal of a land use application, which is prohibited in the Mixed Use Zone District until the expiration of the current land use application moratorium that enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 19 Series of 2006." Sardy House, LLC . 128 East Main Street. Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Ii 970,920,2525 F, 970,920,4478' www.sardyhouse.com ,- ~"' './ '., ,/ On May 12th we met with you and Amy Guthrie and the representative of our contracted buyer, Gwen Dickenson, Quite frankly, we were shocked by the negative and hostile manner in which Staff responded to several questions we asked during this meeting, One might have thought we proposed to "scrape and replace" or otherwise desecrate the Sardy House, Still, the Staff maintained a position essentially in accord with the position you communicated to us earlier in your April discussion with David Myler, insofar as the availability of a building permit for an interior remodel during the moratorium. A change in the total number of bedrooms was discussed and Amy Guthrie stated that we would need to pass a "sniff test" to ensure compliance with the boardinghouse definition, but it appeared clear to us that Staff took the position that the issuance of a building permit for a remodel inside the boardinghouse portion of the Sardy House, without change-of-use or increase in square footage, would not be prohibited by the emergency moratorium ordinance. According to my notes, you specifically stated: "I can't think of anything that would prevent interior walls being tom down." On Monday, May 15th, Gwen Dickenson asked Staff via e-mail a follow-up question: "We need to have one more answer to a question Daniel posed to you in the meeting. Can we get a building permit now to reconfigure the back portion into less bedrooms and more ancillary type rooms that we would have as usage for the boarding house? In the meeting we discussed reducing the total number of bedrooms to maybe 4 in the rear house and the recreational type rooms created. We need to know could we get a building permit now for doing this type of remodel to the back." The following day, May 16th, Staff responded in writing: "As we discussed at the meeting, we would need to see specific plans and then we could rule on whether a specific plan is acceptable under the current allowances for the building." Later that week, our buyer exercised his right to terminate our contract. On June 2nd, Prank Peters, David Myler and I met with you, Amy Guthrie and JoIm Worcester, the city attorney, One ofthe points we made at that meeting was that when we reconstructed the Sardy House in 1985, after receiving conditional approval for the boardinghouse use, we built out to an PAR of .75:1, the same PAR then allowed by right in the old Office zone district for a single family dwelling, Staff disputed this particular point, but during that lengthy meeting, we were given no indication that Staffs position of May 16th and earlier had changed. Staff encouraged us to submit specific plans and so we continued to believe that if we submitted specific plans and that if those plans were deemed to fall within the scope of the boardinghouse defmition, we might be issued a building permit for an interior remodel in a timely manner, " Page I of I James Lindt From: Daniel Delano [delano@sardyhouse,com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 20065:01 PM To: James Lindt Subject: Re: Appeal Request Hi James, Please wait to schedule any hearing, as the issue is not immediately pressing to us, Then, if & when we request scheduling of a hearing, we will submit an addendum letter stating our reasons for the appeal. Thanks, Daniel ----- Original Message ----- From: Jml1es Limit To: Qanis;lDtl1ano Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:58 PM Subject: Appeal Request Hi Daniel, We received your appeal request. There is no official form for an appeal so your letter will suffice, But I would suggest providing us with an addendum letter stating the reason(s) why you believe that there was an abuse of discretion or there was a denial of due process, Also, we weren't clear as to whether you want us to actually schedule you on a Council agenda or whether you want us to simply hang on to the appeal request until a possible purchaser would like to convert three of the boardinghouse units and then we would schedule you if that turns out to be the case? Please send me an e-mail response letting me know whether you want us to actually schedule you at this time, Thanks, James 7/20/2006 r- >, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADD.E" D,,"DmIT, AfpeQ 1_1i cde IYt~.VJ1Co SCHEDULEDPUBLICHEARlNGDATE: ~! - 100 ' ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS, County of Pitkin ) I, \,jO/JVlC.s:;;, Ll\/(('l+ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304,060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 4'publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fiftee~ (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto, _ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from t*e Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto, _ Mailing of notice, By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Develqpment Department, which contains the information described in tection 26,304,060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class po~age prepaid U,S, mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date ofthe public hearing, A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto, (continued on next page) - ~ Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enac.trnent of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an (dcurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived, However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments, fiJ:M&A ature ~~Jl- The fon:?avit of Notice" was acknowledged Lore me this I~ay of " 200-i, by ,~TAME-SNJ)T , RE: APPFAL O~DC ~~n~5DE INTERPRETA- TION: LAND U CODE SECTION 26.425, CONDI- TIONAL USES NOTICE HEREBY GIVEN that a public meetingwlllbe Id on Monday, August 28. 2006. atameetingtobeginat5:00p.m.beloretheAs- pen City Council, CIty Council Chambers, City HaJl,IJOS.GaIenaSt.,Aspell,toconSideranap- pllcatioll submitted bytheSardyHouse,llC, 128 E. Main Slceet, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting the appeal of a land use code interpretation. The land use code interpretatioll being appealed re- lales to whether a conditional use amendment is required to aherthe interior floor plan of a use Ihat was approved through aconditlonal use re- view pursuant to Land Use Code Sectlon 26.425, Conditional Uses For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2763,jamesl@CLaspen.co.us. s/HeJen Kalin KJanderud,Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the en Times Weekly on August 13,2006.(3942) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ()4//r /2-00 T ~~'I dtary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Jl DD~~ ~ U~g' I!.i!U~ UJ Ii';:: I!.;:: ~ ~ ! ~ ~ Ln i ~~~ ~ iF g ~ ~ -..J ..... :II ~ H ~ go ;:: ~ ~ *' C& f\' ~ ~~ 3 !II. ~ (,)"lz ~ i~ i I [ ~ I '" ~ ~ 3 !!o o ~ 3 Jl \I -g: ..J] 10-' -,J 10-' o [)> ru 10-' UJ UJ o l';l ~ ~ l' ~ lI'" o Ln -,J 0 ~ ~ ~~~i '0 ffi<~ ~ I J ~ R:H C\ ,s;:-(} -0 \)D~ ~ ~ -0 () ~> "t- "-'AI" ~~t:; --- !- !" ;-' . . Q>tg4'ffb' Oiif....3.33. :.g.a~~12. i9=:eg::t;~ ui" CD .., ::IJ CD aog~li all!:o 3 :0,3 :::;;d:;;(CDS,0 CJ)oE~!:"' ~ 9'3 c.o!" <D<D_8.m..~ ig-ia.~a. 3~!.lm-<!" ijfaao;r~ . 9=6":.ifg CO,< ::di/!.g ~} a ~~ '2: ~ i III iil CD so CD t' $} :s:. 71 ~ to ,. V\ ~ >-l ~ " ~ w zo :J: , ~ "' 't- nO () ~ 0" 5 :i :l S'S? -< 1 :5 ~ 0 , Z ." ~> ;p. r "~ ~;:j ~ ." -+- ';"'~ "' tD~ Z C;i >-l OJ ~ - i:l '" - l> S-;:' a n 0 n ~(b CD 0 c " in' :;:' " ." 5' ." Z " " CD c ~ c. -< 3 ~ " 0' "or 0_, ~ O'm rn .... roc. - iil ~ " ~ III ~ ." ![ n .,. ~ - ,.. '" 0 c: 3' 0 g.~ '" '" iDQ, l/l z ~ 3_ 0 ~ U> c ~.(D or 3 " 'l -~ !: 0' ~~ " ;;' '< -, !'! ~ ~ 0'" 03 ~ " m ~ c ~ ~ m U> ~- ::1 -''< U "ll "'0 il 0 U> 30 '" " " ~ ~ ~ ~ n' ,.." U> '" n ~ '" 0 iil '6' '" ~ n '" 6i~ ." ~ S' n ~ '" -'" '" '" ifo '" '" il' '" n~ '" ,," ::0 0 ~R- '" " '" ~. ~ IU: n " ~g, <' <D <D- C. n~ =" ~ '< ~ 0 3 !!( <5' ~ n " W ;; s = ~ ~ .ll ... -u ... 0 '" ru ... w w w ;>- ,,""(Jilt:! .ll [JJ NO> 0> W '0 00>i " ... C1l "',.. " "''< C1l In ,... ~ 0- n ;;: 0 t:! .ll 0 " " C1l -u ",. [JJ ,... 00 " C1l " 0- """ " '" (Jil t" 0 0 """ '" t" In """ >i n " -u C1l " C1l '" '" '" >i " " "'" '" C1l '" C1l >i [JJ '1:i OJ (JQ (J) - o ..., . s: 0 0 UNITt/) J> Of'.) IS' ~~,:f)\ ~ ~ l~~ i ~ ~~ ~If ~ ~~ w,' 0) 0'" \~ I, ...... 0" I _> Q') 0 . -::,. I!f~ ,I eel /0 t1 /It tIe! /Jeloil'O LAND ~ ~/nr6b PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION: SECTION 26.425, CONDITIONAL USES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on Monday, August 28, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p,m, before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S, Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Sardy House, LLC, 128 E, Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting the appeal ofa land use code interpretation, The land use code interpretation being appealed relates to whether a conditional use amendment is required to alter the interior floor plan of a use that was approved through a conditional use review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses, For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S, Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429,2763, jamesl@ci.aspen,co,us, s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 13,2006 City of Aspen Account , l t ~" r""' ..... Page 1 of I " / James Lindt From: James Lindt Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1 :04 PM To: 'delano@sardyhouse,com'; 'Gwen' Cc: Amy Guthrie; Chris Bendon; John Worcester Subject: Sardy House Question Daniei and Gwen, Please let this e-mail serve as a response to the question that you posed to us in writing on Friday, On Friday May 12th, you posed to us the following handwritten question related to the Sardy House: "Given the unique circumstances of the existing historic landmark Sardy House, is there a way to arrive at a prospective buyer's goal to preserve the exterior of the property as is, without increase of existing square footage, with use of the whole property by one family or an extended family and with no commercial use?" At Friday's meeting, you indicated that you needed an answer to the above question by the end of the day on May 15th because your buyer's due-diligence deadline was expiring, Given the short timeframe we have had to discuss the issue as a staff, the only review process that we are aware of that you could apply for to convert the entire structure into a single-family residence is an administrative change-in-use for a historic property (Land Use Code Section 26.470,070(B)(2)), coupled with a Board of Adjustment variance (Land Use Code Section 26,314) to legalize the existing FAR of the building for a single-family residence, We could not approve a change-in-use of the back portion of the building to be part of the single-family residence without the Board of Adjustment approving a dimensional requirement variance because converting the entire property to a single-family residence without a dimensional requirement variance would increase a non-conformity related to FAR. The reason that converting the entire structure to a single-family residence would increase the non-conformity is that the Mixed Use Zone District in which the property is located has a much higher allowable FAR for a mixed use project than it does for a single-family residence pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,710,180, Therefore, converting the entire building to a single-family residence would lower the allowable FAR on the parcel, thereby increasing the extent to which the existing structure is over the allowable FAR, which is not permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,312, So you could apply for a Board of Adjustment variance and a change-in-use after the 6-month moratorium on new land use applications expires in October. Staff will not provide you with a recommendation on such an application at this time and will only render a recommendation once a full application has been submitted for review after the moratorium, However, please note that a Board of Adjustment variance from allowable dimensional requirements can only be granted by the Board of Adjustment if they find that the allowable dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant related to the land subject to the application, The answer to your question provided in this e-mail is based on current zoning, which is subject to change, This e-mail does not create a legal or vested right. Regards, James Lindt Senior Planner City of Aspen 8/14/2006