The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.19741008 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM % c. F. MOECKEL B. B.& L. Co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning October8.! 1974 The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Spencer Schiffer with members Jack Jenkins, Janet Landry and Chick Collins present. Bryan Johnson had an excused absence. Also present was City Attorney Sandra Stuller, City/ County Planner John Stanford and Yank Mojo. The Chairman noted that this was a special meeting to reconsider the RBH parking and vote on the zoning Resolu- tion CHANGES TO CODE The City Attorney submitted to the members the pages within the zoning code with the changes that the members had asked for. Page 5, Sec. 24-2.8 Applicability to Public Agencies Ms. Stuller said that on her own iniative, she had put in this paragraph that makes the zoning code applicable to zoning agencies. She said that this was in response to the proposed acquisition of the City's property by the Post Office, that she would like this to come within the P & Z's jurisdiction and work with the P & Z. Page 7, Paragraph N Definitions The members had asked that the word motel be stricken from the paragraph and also the word limited. Page 9, Para. BB Definitions This was an insertion of the definition of employee housing which was included at the request of the Building Inspector Page 9, Sec. 24-3.2 Permitted and Condo Uses This was to expand on the introduction to their use chart to define what is a permitted and what is a conditional use and making reference in the conditional use definition to proceedings for approval. Pages 9a, b,c, d Use Charts Nine a,b and c were included in the packet but only one page was actually changed. The pages had to be relettered but only 9d, the service/commercial/industrial area, was changed. The City Attorney believed members had wanted all conditional uses deleted and incorporated into the permitted uses. Jenkins thought that they were going to leave off dwelling units accessory to other permitted uses and Landry added that residences for those employed also was to be left out. Schiffer thought those were only to be left out in the neighborhood/commercial but both Landry and Jenkins thought otherwise. Schiffer also asked the members if they could foresee any conditional uses. Jenkins thought it was a bad place to put in housing. Schiffer said that the decision to leave it in permitted or conditional would be to determine if the P & Z or the Board of Adjustment would decide the case. If it is made conditional, then the P & Z would decide, and he thought it was more of a planning and zoning problem than a variance problem. Jenkins said that his first reaction was that anytime a dwelling unit was put in a commercial area, they don't get what they want. Landry was opposed to dwelling units even as a conditional use because it would give applicants the argument that it was allowable. Schiffer noted that someone might want to put in a nightwatchman and that would be perfectly under- -1- -. -(;- ~,wapB~V aq~ daa~ haq~ ~aq~aq~ ~Bq~ pa~B~S haU~O+~V h~'J aq~ pUB h~OOa~B~ ~,WapB~V aq~ O~ Sp~BOa~ U, a~,JJO OU,uUBtd aq~ JO ~sanoa~ aq~ ~B paouBq~ OStB SB~ GOt aOBd .~uawa~,noa~ a~Bds uado pUB puno~o atoq~ aq~ ~no ad,~ pUB puno~o aq~ uo ttB ~nd pUB sa,~o~s O~~ a~B~ PtnO~ haq~ uaq~ '~OU SB~ ~uawa~,noa~ aq~ J, ~Bq~ OU,U,Btdxa %S(; O~ paouBq~ (; ~ T saopo~ ~apun a~Bds ou,PT,nq B ~OJ pa~,noe~ a~Bds uado JO ~ua~ ~ad aq~ aABq O~ a~,t OStB PtnO~ a~,JJO ou,UUBtd aq~ ~Bq~ p,BS O~OW .saopOt pUB ta~oq q~oq ~OJ % E/t EE JO O,~B~ aahotdwa aq~ pa~dOpB haq~ a~aq~ aopo~ ~apun JOt aoBd UO apBW SB~ aouBqJ .ht,WBJ-,~tnW/tB,~Uap,sa~ ~apun sntd s~,un ~noJ OStB pUB asnoq~o~ JO UO,~,u,Jap aq~ paddo~p aOBd at~,~ aq~ 'pa~aqwnua~ a~a~ saoBd aq~ .at~,~~B aq~ JO suo,~aas ~uanoasqns u, suo,~da~xa pUB s~uaw -a~,noa~ tBUO,~,ppB hq pa~uawatddns pUB pau,Jap ~aq~~nJ a~B s~uawa~,noa~ ~,SBq aq~ ~Bq~ U,Btdxa O~ haU~O~~V h~'J aq~ hq pa~~asu, uaaq pBq uo,~aas s,q~ JO aU,t ~SBt aq~ .s~au~o PUBt ~Ua~B~pB O~ aa,~ou a~,noa~ q~,q~ sa~npa~o~d a~UB,~BA aq~ JO UO,~dOpB aq~ SB aWBS aq~ httB,~UaSSa tt,~S a~a~ sa~npa~ -o~d aq~ ~Bq~ pa~B~S aqs .sasn tBUO,~,pUO~ aAo~ddB O~ Z ~ d aq~ a~BUO,Sap PtnO~ s,q~ ~Bq~ pa~B~,pU, ~attn~s .SW .pa,~~Ba UO,~OW .hBU su,~uar pUB h~pUB~ ~OJ ~daaxa ~OABJ u, ttV .ou,Pt,nq aq~ JO asn h~BW,~d B ~OU B SB~ ~, pau,Btdxa O~OW pUB ~UBaW asn pa~~,w~ad B O~ h~OSSa~~B ~,un oU,tta~p B ~Bq~ JO UO,~,u,Jap B ~OJ pa~SB su,~uar .papuo~as p~BU~Bg .asn tBUO,~,pUO~ B ~, a~BW pBa~SU, pUB I/J/s ~apun UllintOa sasn pa~~,~ad aq~ WO~J sasn pa~~,w~ad ~aq~o O~ h~OSSa~~B s~,un oU,tta~p a~atap haq~ ~Bq~ paAOW SU,ttOJ .sasn pa~~,~ad ~O tBUO,~,puoa ~aq~,a SB waq~ OU, -~UB~ ~OU ~OJ SUOSBa~ ~aq pa~B~S U,BOB h~pUB~ .~aq~,a~, q~,~ OUO~~ OU,q~hUB aas ~OU p,p ~nauoBA pUB atqBuosBa~ SBM asn tBUO,~,pUO~ aq O~ waq~ OU,~OttB ~Bq~ ~taJ P~BU~Bg .~taJ s~aqwaw ~aq~o aq~ ~oq waq~ paS,ApB aH .paA,~~B ~sn~ pBq oq~ s~aqwaw O~~ aq~ O~ ~,do~ aq~ pa~np -o~~u,a~ aq OS paAtOSa~ asn pa~~,~ad ~O tBUO,~,puoa B SB s~,un oU,tta~p h~OSSa~~B JO uo,~sano aq~ pa~UB~ ~aJJ,qas .aA,~~B P~BU~Bg pUB ~nauoBA .uo,~saouo~ SSat aSnBa PtnO~ ~, asnBaaq U, ~da~ uaaq pBq Shtddns s,~apt,nq ~ng .uo,~saouoa aq~ O~ OU,PPB pUB U~O~ qono~q~ OU,OO aq O~ s,was aSnBa PtnO~ 'u, ~, ~nd O~ a~a~ auo J, Ba~B aq~ JO ~~Bd aO~Bt B aq O~ ~BaddB PtnO~ qa,q~ 'p~Bh~aqwnt aq~ ~Bq~ pUB .~S tt,W ~OJ a~B,~do~ddB ~OU a~a~ s~odap ~taJ haq~ ~Bq~ p,BS O~OW .~no s~odap UO,~B~~odsUB~~ pUB ~, Ua~B~ pBq O~OW pUB aq ~Bq~ p,BS P~OJUB~S pUB ~no Ua~B~ uaaq pBq haq~ hq~ pauo,~sano su,~uar .s~odap UO,~B~~odsUB~~ pUB S~UB~nB~Sa~ U, aA,~p 'sp~Bh~aqwnl 'UO,~B~~odsUB~~ 'tB~Ua~ ata,qaA paAOwa~ pUB J/N pUB I/J/s q~oq u, sasn tBUO,~,puoa WO~J ~aAO Ou,q~h~aAa pa~~aJSUB~~ pBq aqs ~Bq~ pa~B~S ~attn~s .SW .~taJ s~aq~o ~oq aas O~ aWBa s~aqwaw a~ow t,~Un ~,B~ O~ pa~UB~ ~nq ~Bq~ paz,tBa~ aqs ~Bq~ p,BS h~pUB~ ~nq u, ~nd aq PtnO~ ~,un ht,WBJ-,~tnW ou pUB asn h~OSSa~~B UB aq htUO PtnO~ ~, ~Bq~ p,BS O~OW .asn tBUO,~,puoa B SB ~, aas O~ pa~UB~ SU,ttOJ .atqBpuB~S ""--"'- "L .oa~ ~tng ~ Ba~v p ~ ~ 'q 'BOt SaoBd suo,~~n~~SUI ~aq~~nd v.E-vE .aas lOt aOBd saso .pUOJ JO tBAO~ddV E.E-v(; .aas lOt aOBd UO,~OW sp~Bh~aqwnt sasn pa~~,~ad I/J/s P.~UOJ 'S~~BqJ aso fORM I! C.F....OECKELB.B./tL.CO' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves October 8, 1974 Special Meeting Page 10d, cont'd Page 11, Sec. 24-3.6 Servicel Commerciall Industrial Aspen Planning & Zoning depends on how the Council treats Area for the Institute. If they she would like to to be included the Specially Planned don't adopt that approach in the new zoning code. Mojo said that they did not want RMF as the minimum lot area per dwelling unit under the Academic nor Public but would prefer No Requirement for those areas. ~s. Stuller explained that in this section she had expanded the square foot limitations to include the SICII areas uses and also increased the size of supermarkets. Collins questions 9,000 (sq. ft.) for a service station and Stanford said it would be equivalent to the Conoco and Texaco had two lots. Barnard did not think it seemed too big. Hans Gramiger, from the audience, said that he thought they would have to allow for 5 lots. Schiffer pointed out that in S.P.A. they can vary the size. Landry wondered about an art studio being 12,000 and Ms. Stuller said it evidentally was in the old code. Jenkins wondered about a restaurant also being allowed 12,000 and a builder's supply being given so much. Vagneur did not want any more novelty shops when there was such a need for lumber. Mojo replied that the Planning Office was against a lumberyard in that area because of the traffic. Schiffer asked if someone had a limited number of lumber, such as for shelves, etc., would that be a lumberyard and Mojo didn't think it would come under his definition. Schiffer was in favor of leaving it as is and Barnard concurred saying that they could be selective in what they put in there. Vagneur was against the repair-sporting goods shops. Ms. Stuller asked if they then wanted lumberyards back in the SICII under 12,000 and members were affirmative. Schiffer thought that 12,000 for a restaurant was too big, but Stanford said that the recommended standard for design planning was to have the same amount of space for kitchens as dining area and Jenkins thought that was out of proportion. Landry said that if restaurants could go that big, why not antique shops, too, and Jenkins said that if limiting the size was the Objective, then he was against the stores being allowed so much size. Schiffer took a straw vote on members favoring stores moved down and four were in favor while two were undecided. Vagneur questioned whether a carpet store wouldn't need more space and Schiffer agreed that he had seen some big stores. Mojo said to encourage competition of the grocery stores, they must get more space so that there isnt another City Market in which they stock only the items that will bring the highest markup. Jenkins said that he still preferred smaller to bigger and that he thought 6,000 was big enough for stores. Stanford said that he would like to see profession offices down to 9,000 and Jenkins thought that was immense after -3- Page 11, Sec. 24-3.6 Page lla, Sec. 24-3.6 Grant Variances Page 15a, Para. J Kitchens in Lodges Page 25, Sec. 24-5.11 Permit Required Page 27, Para. C-4 Review Criteria Page 32, Sec. 24-7.1 S.P.A's Page 45, Sec. 24-9.12 Appeal Procedures Page 57, Para. 2 Curb cuts view Corridor ,,,,.,. -"-~'-"~""".'~."'" I,.....,..~,....... ,._______ ,~,-~ ",. .._~I,,;~.~-;----~,. evaluating what most offices locally have in terms of space. Barnard said that if someone puts in a basement, as all will do with the high cost of land, then that will add just so much more for a storage company but Mojo reminded them that they were dealing in gross floor area and had to think in terms of uses of the building rather than FAR. Jenkins suggested that the planning Office come back after evaluating the problem. Schiffer said that sporting goods at 12,000 bothered him. He went though the list: department stores, ok; appliance ok; furniture, ok; carpet stores, ok; sporting goods the members felt should be 6,000; also variety, professional offices, catering services, financial institutions and art studios all should be 6,000. Para~raph G was added because it grants the P & z authority to grant variances on square footage limitations. Jenkins questioned Paragraph E under Sec. 24-3.6 which dealt with 15,000 allotted for a food market, warehouse or storage and Mojo reiterated the competition aspect and said that but for political considerations he would like to see it raised to 24,000. Stanford explained that the Council had expressed a strong distraste for a supermarket at the Schottland Center. Members were polled on allowing 20,000 as a compromise and Collins thought something smaller should be considered while Jenkins and Landry were uncertain. 20,000 was finally decided on. Ms. Stuller explained that when kitchens are placed in a unit in a lodge it is then considered a multi-family unit. This addition was made by the Building Inspector as the City Attorney had originally deleted it but he had asked for it to be reinstated. This is to allow that the stream channel capacity not be artificially changed as a result of development along the riverbank. under this section the words "or varying allowable densi- ties" had been added. HPC designations or permanent denials from the HPC to be reviewed by Council. Vagneur had made reference to her property fronting Hwy 82 not having an alley so consequently this paragraph deals with a prohibition against any curb cuts on Hwy 82 subject to those areas on Hwy 82 where there is alley access so a car can come in from the alley and curb cuts are not necessary. Jenkins asked about Viewplanes and Ms. Stuller explained it was in the Resolution. Schiffer reviewed the Resolu- tion to Council from the P & z recommending adoption of of the code and map. The Chairman said that he would have rather had the View Corridor taken out of the Resolution and put back in upon simultaneous adoption of the Ordinance but that he would go along with it this way. Ms. Stuller pointed out that the way the Resolution is phrased, they are not recommending readoption of the view planes so it is effectively deleted. -4- .... ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIIIIO C.F.HOECKElB.B.8L.CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning October 8, 1974 Considerations of the Resolution, cont'd View Planes Schiffer asked if the Council would make the determination that neither variances nor development under PUD proced- ures will allow reasonable enjoyment and the City Attorney replied in the affirmative. Barnard questioned what would happen if Council were unsympathetic and she said that would be a springboard to litigation if they did not give approval for compensation for an individual suffering because of a view plane limiting his expansion powers. Barnard objected that the burden fell on the sufferer to get into the whole change process. Collins wondered if they needed it because the Bergman building had accomodated the view plane easily but Schiffer noted that it might not be possible with some buildings. Off-Street Parking Vagneur asked the way someone who supplies parking on a site or agrees to do so can be forced to use that rather than the streets and Ms. Stuller answered there was no way to enforce it and brought up the problem encountered at the Professional Building in which the employees are using the parking in the Hunter Square lot and claiming their rights as the "public". Jenkins asked if a space can be reserved and her answer was that a flow had to be maintained. She observed that the City could only arbi- trate the squabbles but had no control. Ms. Stuller then went over the changes they had asked for in this session. Collins asked if lumberyards shouldn't be put back in for a storage of lumber materials as a builder's supply and objected only to a Buckingham Palace type of guardhouse at the entrance. Jim Moran asked if 20,000 was the allowable for a ware- house and storage, if the basement were used exclusively for a private storage could they have a possible 40,000 to use and Ms. Stuller replied in the affirmative. Mojo explained that if they used the basement it could only be for a private use and Ms. Stuller advised that they change the paragraph to read commercial warehouse and storage. Adoption of Resolution Vagneur asked if the map was complete and Mojo said that but for the line on the SICII and the NIC, it was done. She questioned if the R-6 land had been changed on the east end and he said it had been changed to R-15. She also said she objected to the Cl district of Hunter to Spring Streets. She also brought up the conflict over the Midland Railroad right-of-way which had been designated parks. Vagneur said that she did not understand the reasoning behind it and Barnard thought that the Planning Office was going to come back and explain to the members about this area. Mojo said that no access was needed to other properties and Stanford said that on the proposed land use plan access to that property would be through the park. Motion Barnard moved to amend the proposed map so as to delete the two parks as indicated on the map at the terminus of 4th & 5th streets. Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Motion Jenkins moved to adopt the Resolution of the P & Z recommending adoption of the revised zoning code and -5- Motion, cont'd Minority Reports Separate Report to Council .'~ "",;...~,.,....-...__..,._, ..,----~-~,,,'--- zoning district map conditional upon the recommended changes which are on tape of this meeting. Barnard seconded. All in favor except for Collins who voted nay. Motion carried. Ms. Stuller asked if any of the members would like to file a minority report and Schiffer said that they had discussed the possibility and asked the members if any one felt strongly about a part of the code, whether they should be allowed to draft a minority report or have things go forwards as a unified recommendation. Barnard felt it would be better if they all agreed on it. Landry said that it had been her suggestion to file a minority report but only if they had been faced with a deadlock. Since they had.worked things out, she saw no reason to file one. Ms. Stuller reminded them that they might send collateral minority comments also. Barnard mentioned the hang up over the parking recommend- ations and Schiffer said that if anyone wanted to make a motion allowing minority reports they could do so. At this time, Schiffer thanked the Planning Office and Ms. Stuller for their time and also the members for their time and especially those who came to every study session. Jenkins wanted to go on record as opposing the Planning Office submitting another report to Council in variance to what the P & Z is submitting. He felt that it was out of order and out of normal orginizational channels. He said they could do that as private individuals but not as a professional organization. He said he had worked with and subjugated his strong opinions, worked out answers, given and taken with the other members and that the synopsis of what he felt was in the code. He said that there were a lot of points he didn't care for but in view of time and consideration of the members, he was willing to accept.their view and go .to Council saying "this is our best effort". He said that when another member of government goes in with another view and presents it as an official view, he will be against it and would fire anyone under him doing it. Jim Moran stated that if the Planning Office is submitting a different recommendation than what the public has seen when will the public get to see it? Stanford said that the recommendations were based on planning considerations ,for instance, the R-6 l.and on the eastend which the P & Z had them change to R-15, he felt he should advise the Council of their recommendation. Jenkins recommended that the whole history be presented to the Council and Stanford agreed. Barnard said that another .report would just tend to confuse the Council. Landry could not understand why it was felt that they had to do it and thought that if they were asked by the Council about a certain area, then they could explain their reasoning along with the P & Z's. Vagneurthought that they would stir things up again from the beginning what had taken them a long time to sort out. Mojo wanted to explain that the Planning Office did not have a voice in any of their decisions and Jenkins said that would be true if they were equals they could vote but they weren't equals. -6- .....,'... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM\<I C.F.HOECKELB.B.!l<L.Co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning October 8, 197i Separate Report, cont'd Landry said that Council had already seen Planning's plan and P & Z's will be totally new so they will ask questions at that time and then it can be explained and Schiffer agreed saying that he was in favor of their First Amend- ment rights to go there and say what they feel personally but if they go before Council in an official position then they will be doing everyone a disservice. Mojo explained that they had four bosses that they were responsible to and Barnard told him that they were not trying to keep them from revealing anything. Stanford said that they should get together with Spencer and present their plans and Jenkins ~~ked who's pl~~ w~s it since he refused not to believe that the majority of what is in the code had been the Planning Offices opinions and advice to the P & Z. Hans Gramiger, from the audience, said that he would make sure that everything came out in the public hearing and especially how the P & Z had tried to stop the Planning Office from reporting. Schiffer said that just for the record, he thought a motion should be made since it appeared that all the members were in agreement on how they felt. Motion Jenkins moved that the consensus of the P & Z was that the Planning Department not make an independant recommendation to the Council other than what they have recommended in" the proposed zoning code and map. Barnard seconded. Landry opposed the word "consensus". Mojo reiterated that the Planning Office did not have the opportunity to represent their views in the votes and Jenkins replied that they were only advisory staff to which Mojo replied that they were also advisory staff to Council. Barnard said that if someone asks them, then they can give a reason but they don't have to volunteer their opinions. Jenkins said that he didn't necessarily agree with all the decisions either but they weren't going up with 7 opinions just as although Mojo and Stanford don't always agree, they weren't going up with 2 different opinions. Vagneur said that she wasn't going to sit there and let them give a separate opinion when many times she had been voted down but went along with the others for the good of the public. Landry again said that she objected to the word "consensus" and Jenkins offered "opinion of" instead and Barnard withdrew his second. Motion Jenkins moved that it was the opinion of the P & Z that the Planning Department not make an independent recommend- ation to the City Council other than what they have recommended in the proposed zoning code and map. Seconded by Barnard. All in favor except for Landry and Collins who voted nay. Motion carried. Landry said that if they had voted down the motion, then they could have agreed on what kind of report they might submit but Jenkins and Barnard were adamant about no -7- ,. ,......--..,...,.,-- ".,...~". ,..- ~ ....."-..-."",..~, Separate Reprt, cont'd reports being allowed. Schiffer again said that an individual report shouldn't be submitted but in a discussion they were welcome to say their opinions. parking Solution Bill Dunaway, from the audience, wanted to ask the City Attorney whether they had any right "to gag" the Planning Office and Barnard asked the Chairman to confine the meeting to only memb~rs but Schiffer wanted to clear the point up. Ms. Stuller replied that the Planning Office function was to act their staff and also the staff of the City Council and that their function was to act as a recommending body to the Council. Council exercises them as advisory staff when Council is making some decisions as the P & z does. When they work in another area their function is comparable. The Chairman said that in terms of making reports, he felt that there was some obligation to make a report on the parking situation and that the committee report submitted had never been voted on. He reviewed that Dr. Barnard supported the underground parking concept and that some- thing should be said now about the solutions as they see them. Vagneur asked if there would be a study session before any voting and Schiffer thought that they could have one before the meeting. Motion Vagneur moved to set the time of the study session as Tuesday, October 22, after their regular meeting. Barnard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. RBH Reconsideration The Chairman brought up the problem of the parking spaces needed for the RBH building and Vagneur asked if they (the people representing RBH) had been notified? Landry questioned whether.it was relevant to consider the problem since they had just passed the recommendation and put Ordinance 9 into effect. Schiffer asked if t~ere was a motion to reconsider the problem. Ms. Stuller said that it would be a superfluous action since all buildings without a permit will have to comply to the new code and RBH evidentally had not obtained one yet. Motion Landry made a motion to reconsider the RBH parking problem but the motion died for lack of a second. Stanford said that now the zoning recommendations were over, they should begin to work on updating the master- plan for the City which needs to be gone over. Schiffer thought that the 1973 land uSe plan was the Masterplan .but Stanford said that Ordinanqe 19 was only tied to it. Jenkins moved to adjourn and Landry seconded. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 6.:25 p.m. . ~L~~/L~~ Deputy Ci~y lerk -8- -- -