Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740530 ..~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR~" C. f. HOEC~El a. B. 1:1 l. co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning May 3D, 1974 Meeting was called to order at 5:10 P.M. by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer with Commission members Bryan Johnson, Janet Landry, Geri Vagneur, Robert Barnard, Chuck Collins, and Jack Jenkins, and City/County Planner Herb Bartel, and Assistant Planner John Stanford. Parking Proposal Discussion Vice Chairman Schiffer explained that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the recommended parking proposals by the Planning Office on which the Commission had had a public hearing on May 23, 1974. Schiffer stated that the format for the meeting would be to ask any questions of the Planning Office and Yank Mojo, who had prepared the report. Landry quoted from Francis Whitaker's letter, con- cerning the fact that some businesses would become nonconforming, if the parking prohibition was ap- proved. Bartel replied that the existing off street parking spaces would be nonconforming, but the use of the structure itself would not be considered non- conforming. Johnson asked if the gray area shown in the legal public notice was the area under consideration for the prohibition of private off street parking, or was it only a portion of the published area. Bartel replied that the notice was for no private off street parking in that gray area. Bartel further replied that the Transportation Plan provided for public off street parking in the area. Assistant Planner Yank Mojo arrived. Schiffer asked Mojo whether the Voorhees Plan was a basis for the recommendation from the Planning Of- fice. He stated that the Voorhees Plan had recom- mended the creation of additional off street park- ing spaces and facilities on the fringe of the commercials core; these may be municipal or private facilities or both. He asked Mojo, since the Plan was a Transportation Plan, why the Planning Office had chosen to disregard this recommendation of the Plan, and recommended another policy, while still trying to implement other aspects of the Voorhees Transporation Plan. Bartel replied that the Voorhees study had dealt with the overall elements of the transportation system, one of which was public off street parking. However, the Voorhees Plan did not make specific off street parking recommendations for the private sector requirements as they exist in Chapter 24 of the zoning code. Schiffer stated that since Voorhees did address the municipal facilities, he felt that this aspect should be studied before making a radical change in the private parking regulations. It was noted that Voorhees probably did not anticipate the termination of off street private parking. All elements addressed in the report were components of the larger plan. Schiffer further mentioned that -1- """ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOllM!G C.f.HOECKELB.B.ltL.CD. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning May 30, 1974 Discussion no recommendation had been made in the study in regard to private off street parking requirements in terms of amending the zoning code. Schiffer stated that the Commission must assume, that Voorhees assumed at that time that off street parking facilities would continue to be provided under the requirements of the zoning code, and based on those spaces being provided he arrives at this recommendation. Schiffer stated that he felt the Commission could take no irreversible action when they have no idea what would happen with the rest of the plan in the future. Schiffer asked how, as stated on Page 21 of the paper, raising the off street parking require- ments would have the effect of creating wholesale development of vacant land into parking lots. Bartel answered that vacant spaces remaining would be devoted to parking if the off street parking requirements were increased substantially. Jenkins noted that this would mean that a developer who wished to build a building on a site would then need to provide parking for the building. This may entail purchasing vacant land near him to satisfy the parking requirement. Schiffer stated what he saw as an alternative to the increase would be that a smaller building would be built on the site dependent on how much parking he could provide. He felt this was a more logical consequence of the increase in off street parking requirements. Mojo stated that it would be cheaper economically to provide parking by buying up vacant land than to pay for the space in the municipal facility. Schiffer stated that this still implied to him that vacant land would be used as parking lots, rather than having a building built on it. Schiffer stated that the alternative of raising the parking requirements and at the same time giving the person the option to provide the parking on the site, or entering into a buy-out agreement had never been presented. Schiffer stated that the Commission was never presented with that alternative, although that was an alternative that should be considered. Schiffer also mentioned that the Voorhees Plan recommended an arterial traffic pattern around the outer core of the City, with off street parking facilities on the fringe area. What adverse effect would additional off street parking facilities on the fringe of the commercial core have on the City? Mojo noted that there was some confusion as to the boundaries of the proposed parking prohibition. Prohibition was intended only for the area surrounded by Hunter and Monarch, and Bleeker and Durant. -2- r ~.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOf:C,",ELB.B.I:lL.CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning May 30, 1974 Discussion Area surrounding this would still be required to provide off street parking or be allowed to buyout. Bartel stated that the publication was for the pro- hibition of parking for the area that extended gen- erally from Original to Garmisch, to the base of the lifts. Prohibition was for business office uses, and check-in, check-out spaces and courtesy vehicle spaces being allowed for the lodges and off street parking being allowed for residential uses. If parking was prohibited in the area suggested, parking provisions were not being changed much from what was already happening; because generally, this was the area where the buyout option is available, and generally no additional off street spaces have been constructed. This area was the shaded area in the legal publication. Bartel noted that the Commission could act on something less than the published notice, but not something more than that. Schiffer reitterated the question how allowing off street parking in the fringe of the commercial core would have an adverse effect on the City, in terms of traffic congestion, pollution, etc. Bartel replied there would be four specific effects. The plan recommended large public lots rather than scattered parking lots. Construction of scattered lots would be inconsistent with the overall objec- tives of the plan, (1) to provide a balances trans- portation system, (2) to deemphasize the use of the automobile in the general area. (3) Air quality objectives would not be met by this, and (4) water quality and loads on the city systems would be a problem. The objective of the proposed plan from the Planning Office was not to ban the automobile but to provide a balanced transportation system. Schiffer mentioned that he failed to see how air quality standards would be facilitated by reducing the number of parking places in the area, and felt there would be more cruising as a result. Also he stated that large municipal lots are not mutually exclusive with off street parking. Johnson then stated that facilitate the decision. twelve major points: he had a proposal that may This proposal consisted of (1) Prohibit private off street parking in the dotted area of the map presented; (2) Increase the off street parking requirements to 40-50% of the Colorado Municipal Code requirements; (3) Institute reserved parking at the Rio Grande property for employees to be purchased by employers. The rest would be free public parking with a shuttle system being in- stituted at once and signs showing the way to the municipal lot; (4) Encourage the underground parking concept for Rubey and Wagner park; (5) Encourage the use of parking meters for on street parking in the down town area; -3- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlMIB C.f.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Special Meetin<;1 Aspen Planning and Zoning May 30, 1974 Discussion (6) Would support expansion of the two hour parking limit for non-residents out far enough so that it would be impractical for employees and tourists to use residen- tial areas for all day parking; (7) Would propose that existing lodges which presently have no off street'parking have set aside a certain number of on street' parking sites on a fee basis, and that they be responsible for policing; (8) Would issue parking permits for residents in affected areas, where parking in limited zones would not allow them to park over night; (9) All parking fees derived from pay parking would be earmarked for road improvement, underground parking and administration of parking, and perhaps city transit; (10) Would encourage any builders out of CC zone to provide parking for employer and employee. Could require that this parking be desig- nated employee parking; (11) Would encourage the Chamber of Commerce and the Lodge Association and City government to promote the concept of alternate ways of travel to and from Aspen; (12) Would encourage the formation of intercept parking at airport at soonest possible time. Vagneur asked about employee parking permits. Johnson stated that the Rio Grande parking area was going to be provided and hopefully employers would be willing to buyout parking there. Also free parking there would be available. Also those busi- nesses outside the CC district should be encouraged to provide parking for their employees on there own premises. Schiffer noted that the Commission should take a look at the legal ramifications of the buyout or lease out programs. Jenkins noted that the area being considered to pro- hibit off street parking was not the problem area anyway, in that very few spaces have been built there in the past years. Any changes made would not apply to this area. Major consideration should be made outside the dotted line presented on the map. Schiffer stated that until the City had a sophisti- cated mass transit system and municipal parking fac- ilities, the Commission would not want to make a committment that would be irrevocable. The Commis- sion at this time should not take action on the recommendation of the Planning Office, but should consider the alternatives available. Bartel stated that certain parts of the recommenda- tion, which were not dependent on their action, but on management should be discussed in formulating an amendment to the Code. (1) The permit for residents; (2) parking time limits; and (3) towing, and higher fees. Bartel stated that he felt there was a gen- eral consensus of administrative ways to handle -4- t""' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOI:CKElB.a.81L.CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning May 30, 1974 Discussion traffic-parking congestion. Bartel further stated that this could be acted upon within the range of the publication. Schiffer then stated that the Commission should act on an overall plan, rather than a piece meal one. All considerations needed to be tied together. Vagneur stated that she couldn't go against public opinion, and agreed the proposal needed more work. Vagnuer made a motion that the recommendation from the Planning Office not go forward to City Council, but that the Commission return the recommendation to the Planning Office for further development of a plan to meet the interim needs of the parking problem in Aspen. Seconded by Barnard. It was noted that this in essence was a motion to table. A vote was taken. Johnson, Barnard, and COllins, no. Commission members Schiffer, Vagneur, Jenkins, yes. Landry Schiffer stated that direction should be given to the Planning Office in addressing the twelve points of Johnson's proposal. Barnard suggested that the proposal be submitted to the Planning Office for study. Barnard made a motion to submit Johnson's complete proposal to the Planning Office for complete analysis and for discussion next Tuesday. Vagneur seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Barnard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. 'l(d~~cv ~6YY Secretary