Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19761214BRADFORD PIIBLISNINO CO.. DENVER R E C O R D O P P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning December 14, 1976 Chick Collins called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with members Isaac, Schuhmacher, Hunt and Hedstrom present. Also present Hal Clark, Sandra Stuller, Bill Kane and Karen Smith Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes from 9/7; 9/10, 9/14, 9/21 and 11/16 1976 with various corrections; seconded by Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. FAR amend- Bill Kane told the Commission the investigation into the FAR was ments to R-6, precipitated by the Council. The feeling is that there is not R-15 and R-30 adequate safeguards within residential zoning district within the City. This should insure that buildings will be harmonized in terms of scale and massing, with the existing neighborhoods. An FAR control does exist in the County land use code. Karen Smith said the rationale for an FAR control are light, air, livability. The rationale also includes the fact that the larger buildings seen now provide an incentive for short term rental. The high cost of land is pushing people into maximizing the square footage on their lot. Aspen is basically a low density area; things are becoming out of scale. FAR is a technique among several and is the most easily administered. Ms. Smith explained that the FAR is the ratio of the floor area within exterior walls of the building to the lot area. The FAR provides a ratio that varies with the size of the lot. The minimum size building required by the building code is about 300 square feet. The proposed FAR would allow larger houses than that. After comparing Eagle County, Pitkin County FARS, a recommendation for Aspen was made. Eagle and Pitkin Counties both have a .3 FAR. The planning office is also recommending a .3 FAR for Aspen. In the R-15 zone, a .16 FAR was recommended, this would permit a 2400 square foot building on a minimum size lot. A .2 FAR was recommended for duplexes in_the R-15. The planning office has recommended a .13 for the R-30 zone for single-family and duplexes. Ms. Smith passed out a chart illustrating the floor area ratios in each of the zone districts. Hunt said he had real problems with FAR control. Hunt said he felt this was like overkill. Some residents here who do a great deal of entertaining require more than normal amount of rooms. These numbers the planning office has come up with would handle a normal single family. Aspen has other than normal single families. Hunt said he wanted more time to study this. It would basically decrease the flexibility of development of a piece of property. Hunt said he was not interested in seeing square boxes built in an allowable space. Kane replied that this would not produce buildings of a like size; it is a ratio. Collins asked what the county experience has been. Clark told the Commission that the FAR control since 1974. The County chose not to include basements in the FAR. The County includes the garage if it is inside, but not if it is a separate structure. This draft of the FAR for the City does include the basement in the FAR. Hunt objected to including either the basement or the garage. In an R-6 zone, this would not allow for a very large house or for family additions. Ms. Smith said there has been no adverse reaction to an FAR control in the County. This could be because the lots are larger. The Commission decided to discuss this concept further at another meeting. The planning office will do more work on the proposal Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning December 14, 1976 Clark submitted a re-draft of the six month leasing restriction with a fifth paragraph added. Clark told the Commission that Council had passed on a rezoning Ordinance for Alpine Acres, zoned R-15. The Council added some restrictions, that the duplexes have a 1600 square foot per side FAR. This would reduce some of the bulk of the buildings. Council also added a six month leasing restriction. Chocolate Clark stated this is a use determination for a candy store Soldier - Use located at 308 S. Hunter. A design of the use was submitted. Determination There is no sit down eating area. The P & Z has approved two food-type uses in the C-1 district. The planning office's general concern is that these food uses not include any sit- down facilities for restaurant service. The planning office recommends approval with the constraint of no sit down. Keleher stated he felt the orientation of the building and its located was most advantageous. This will be more of a gift shop. Keleher pointed out that this will face the CC zone. All the food will be boxed or wrapped. Collins read the conditional uses in the C-1 district. Keleher told the Commission this store had been approved by the sanitarian. Collins said if this was approved as a specialty food store, that could apply to many concerns. There would be a proliferation of these on the fringe of the CC district. This will make less space available for those uses meant to be in the C-1 zone. Keleher asked if he could go ahead and start the business before the public hearing. City Attorney Stuller said there was no precedent for this. Clark stated this would be predetermining that this is an allowed use. Hunt moved to set the public hearing for a conditional use for January 4, 1977; seconded by Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Pawn Shop Clark said this is a use determination for the Hotel Jerome Use Deter- for a pawn shop. This will be buying, selling, trading, holding urination in pawn new and antique merchandise. The property is zoned CC. This is a combination retail and financial institution. The recommendation of the planning office is approval by right in this instance. Isaac stated that he thought a pawn shop was a bad use in the hotel. Hunt moved to approve the pawn shop as a permitted use in the commercial core zone; seconded by Hedstrom. All in favor, with the exception of Isaac. Motion carried. Subdivision This is a request for subdivision exemption by the Slavens to Exemption - divide lots Q, R, and S in Block 35, East Aspen Townsite into Slavens two parcels. The division would leave lot S to go with the existing single family dwelling. Lots Q and R are currently vacant. The property is zoned R/MF. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to create a non-conforming lot. Clark read the minutes from the Board of Adjustment. The planning office is concerned by the principle of establishinc a non-conforming lot. This could establish a new way to create developable parcels within the City. In this particular case, since the property is zoned R/MF, in all probability it will be developed in high density. The planning office feels that the single family dwelling on Lot S should continue to exist. The planning office supports the exemption, Lot S should be deed restricted to a single family dwelling. Hunt pointed out that the applicant would benefit from this non- conforming procedure. Hunt said he would like to minimize the expansion of the non-conformity; there is a logical limit that that lot can support. -2- ,--- ~ r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IOFM 50 C. i. NOECN EL B. B. 8 L. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning December 14, 1977 Slavens (cont.) Jim Moran, representing the Slavens, stated this would simply become a non-conforming lot and is restricted to a single family dwelling. Moran said that the Slavens are willing to restrict the use to a single family dwelling Clark pointed out that any development, multi-family, on the two lots will have to go through subdivision procedures The only thing the P & Z is exempting is review of the existing single family and the portioning of the lots. The six month leasing restriction would apply only to lots Q and R; single family dwellings are exempted. Hunt moved to exempt the Slavens parcel from the strict application of the subdivision regulations, and it is to be noted that the single family dwelling on lots S shall remain as a single family dwelling so long as the building lasts; seconded by Isaacs. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt pointed out that the single family dwelling was not a restriction, but merely a notation. This will not prevent the lot from being sold back to the adjacent property owner. Subdivision Exemption-Mars Clark told the Commission this is a request for a subdivi- sion exemption by the Mars to condominiumize an existing duplex located in the Hallam addition, south 35 of north 49 feet of lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of Block 99. The applicant is willing to restrict the units to six month leasing restrictions. The planning office recommends approval with that condition. The engineering department has not comments. This property is located in the R-6 zone on 617 Fourth street, and in 1966 received a variance to build a duplex on a lot less than 6,000 square feet. There is about 5,000 square feet on the lot. Hedstrom moved to exempt the Mars duplex from subdivision regulations subject to the six month lease restrictions; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Subdivision Exemption Clark said this property is Lot 2, Block 2 Pitkin Mesa Heller subdivision and is in process of annexation to the City. There will be a hearing to rezone the property to R-15 at the next P & Z meeting. This is condominiumization of an existing duplex. The planning office recommends approval with the six month lease restriction. Isaacs moved the six month All in favor, to approve the exemption from subdivision with lease provision; seconded by Schuhmacher. motion carried. Isaacs moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m.; seconded by Hedstrom. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Hau er, City Clerk