Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19720606 , - , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORll lO C. F. ~OECKEL 6. 8. II l. CD. ll:egular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June 6, 1972 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5:10 p.m. with James Breasted, James Adams, Vic Goodhard. Also present City/ County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planner Fred Wooden and Building Inspector Clayton Meyring. Breasted moved to approve the minutes of the last meeting as prepared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Adams. All in favor, motion carried. Charles Collins arrived. Post Office Post Office - Mr. Bartel request the Planning and Zoning Commission meet with the City Council and postal officials on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. Brownell Subdivision and final development plan - Chairman Molny opened the public hearing. James Breasted left Commission table, due to conflict of interest. Brownell Sub.- div. & PUD Mr. James Reser, Surveyor, and Mr. Wooden explained the changes made and noted on the final development plan: (1) City Engineer requested a change in the parking area to avoid one long curb cut, plat shows 2 curb cuts; (2) language was added to the plat that was requested by the Commission; (3) the line between the common area and Lot 2 has been changed. Mr. Wooden questioned what the applicant plans to do about the 4% of monies which is required. Attorney Art Daily questioned how the 4% is estab- lished. It was reported the 4% is based on present market value prior to improvements. Applicant to handle prior to issuance of building permit. Chairman Molny closed the public hearing. Adams moved to approve the final PUD plan conditioned on the following: (1) that the language on the plat be reviewed by the City Attorney; (2) that the 4% payment to the City be noted on the plat that no building permit will be issued until payment at the present market value prior to improvements has been paid and (3) recommend the Council waive the improve- ments agreement requirement under the subdivision regulations. Seconded by Goodhard. Adams moved to amend the motion of the final subdivision plat. All in favor, motion carried. to include approval Seconded by Goodhard. Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried. - 1 - - ; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORilIlO C.F.HOECKHa.B.llL.CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 6/6/72, continued. Zoning Amend. Zoning Amendment - Chairman Molny opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Wooden reviewed the proposal with the Commission. (See attached data) Discussed question raised by William Dunaway, of the inconsistency in square footage of multi-family dwelling and hotel, motel, lodge accommodations. Mr. Wooden explained the proposal is based on a need for permanent housing and presently there is a limited amount of one bedroom hotel, motel development. Chairman Molny closed the public hearing. Commission discussed the question raised by Mr. Dunaway and felt a change in the proposal at this time was not required. Further questioned the building inspector on his policy of enforcement, i.e. "door game". Mr. Meyring explained his policy is that when the plans are reviewed, they are checked as to any possibility of utilizing more units than actually applied for. It was noted by the Commission a change in the proposed amendment regarding minimum square footage of lot area per dwelling unit was made so that the hotel, motel, lodge catagory for each district would have separate square footage requirement for unlimited, one bedroom limited and studio limited units. Breasted moved to dire~ the Planning Office to pre- pare this proposal in ordinance form for Council consideration with the change as noted and recommend its adoption. Seconded by Adams. All infavor, motion carried. Black Birch Lot 17 Stream margin request, Erickson, Black Birch, Lot 17 - Hat submitted, no problems, letter submitted relieving the City of responsibility of flooding. Goodhard moved to approve the application, however, (approval runs to November 1, 1972 and recommend to the Building Inspector to seriously consider re- quiring that the building be set back sufficiently from the edge of the presmt course of the stream and the buildings on this lot be built in such a way to protect from flooding, i.e. no basements, lower floors be elevated etc., set on pilings of some sort and that there be an agreement in writing promoted by the owners of this lot that the City will be relieved from the responsibility of floodingJ Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Danieli S. Margin Stream margin request, Danieli - Commission reviewed plat, Mr. Wooden request the Commission review the site due to some undercutting along the stream bank. Mr. Danieli stated he ~o~l~ agree to a trail easement .-.....""..--,.....,.+.---.."-,,......,-.....,-.............. .. FORilI,O C.F.HOECKELB.B.llL.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Jenkins, S. Margin Villa Annex. Proposed Bldg. Main Street Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 6/6/72, continued. along the stream. Charles Vidal arrived. Stream margin request, Jack Jenkins - Commission reviewed plat. Mr. Wooden request the Commission review the site. Backfill and compacting along the stream in this area. Villa Annexation - Commission reviewed the plats. Mr. Bartel submitted the cost analysis sheet pre- pared by the engineering department on this annexation. Mr. Bartel outlined the previous concerns of the Commission: (1) access to the parking lot; (2) present parking directly off of highway; (3) common curb cut. Further explained the annexation by say- ing there is a big difference in the water fees but this should not be the main consideration on the annexation. Consideration must be given to the people who will be living in the units once it is developed and their being a part of the City, also a problem will exist with the arbitrary line after development with part of the development being in the City and part out of the City. Sidewalks etc. would come under the issuance of a building permit. AR-l is a condition of the annexation, but the Commission should not consider zoning at this time. Breasted moved to recommend to the City Council that the Villa Annexation be annexed to the City. Seconded by Goodhard. Ad ams moved to amend the motion to include," based on the following reasons: (1) although there is a difference in revenue of $300, this is not the sole consideration; (2) the configuration of the property is such that the City and County line falls in an arbitrary way; (3) sociologically this development should be in the City because a majority of the property is presently in the City." Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Molny reported on the meeting held with the new owners of the property on Main Street between Spring and Hunter. Requested the owners apply to the Board of Adjustment for height variance so that a monolitic building would not be constructed in this location. Owners stated they were too far along with their plans to make a change. - 3 - - . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.a.lll.CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 6/6/72, continued. Alps Mall Plan Aspen Alps Mall Plan - Plans were submitted and reviewed. Requesting closure of Ute Avenue between Spring and Original. Signatures of the adjoining property owners were submitted. Permission from the Fire Chief has not been obtained. Parking will be replaced in another location. Mr. Bartel stated the following conditions should be met prior to the signing of an agreement: (1) street closed but not vacated; (2) area open for pedestrians, bicycles, horses and emergency vehicles; (3) all expenses of the closure to be born by the Aspen Alps and/or property owners; (4) analysis of public parking and signing as a dead end street; (5) approval of the fire chief; (6) implications of closure from a legal point of view; (7) planning and zoning commission reserves the right to review the final landscaping plans. Vidal moved to approve the closing of the street in concept for the following reasons: (1) it is in accordance with the general circulation plan; (2) City encourages open space. Commission recommends approval subject to the Commission's right to approve the final drawings of what is to be accomplished on the site. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Historic Bldgs. Master Plan Committee - Mr. Bartel reported as a starting point for consideration by the Historic Preservation Committee the following sites have been suggested: Lift No.1; Stollard House; Wheeler Opera House and Ute Cemetery. Proposed resolution of the above was submitted. Collins moved to adopt the resolution and authorize the Chairman to sign same. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Breasted moved to adjourn this meeting to Thursday June 8th at 5:00 p.m. to reach a decision on tabled stream margin requests. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting ended 7:l5p.~~_ /::LJ ~ -/ ~...-. . i /~ '----- - Lorraine Graves Secretary ~.__. .._,......,_".~...,'".'..H"_~~._"'...,.....". .H""'~"~ ........, l!:- e/ ~/ (pJv/1-;/ May, 1972 PROPOSED AMENffi1ENT TO CHAPTER 24 REGARDING MINlMU}1 SQDAIlli FOOTAGE OF LOT AREA P~QUlRED FER DWELLING UNIT See tion 1. Existing Definition of a 1'Nelling Unit (24-2. (f)): (f) Dwelling unit: T,v') or more rooms, in addition to kitchen or bath facilities in a bDilding intended or designed for occ~paney oy a family or guests inde.. pendent of other families or guests. (1) Li::lited - One room, i71divisible, except for included kitchell or bath facilities. (2) Unlimited - ~vo or more rooms, in addition to kitchen or bath facilities. To be Replaced by the Following Definition of a Dwelling Unit (2!f-2. (f)): (f) DWELLING UNIT: ONE OR MORE ROOMS IN ADDITION TO KITCHEN OR BATH FACILITIES IN A BUILDING INTENDED OR DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY A FAMILY OR GUESTS INDEPENDENT OF OTHER FAMILIES OR GUESTS. (1) STUDIO: LIMITED - ONE ROOM, INDIVISIBLE, EXCEPT FOR INCLUDED KITCHEN AND/OR BATH FACILITIES WHERE - 2 - THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE UNIT DOES NOT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET. (2) ONE BEDROOM: LIMITED - TWO ROOMS IN ADDITION TO KITCHEN AND/OR BATH FACILITIES \'!HERE THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE UNIT DOES NOT EXCEED 700 SQUAIlli FEET. (3) UNLIMITED - TWO OR MORE ROOMS, IN ADDITION TO A KITCHEN AND/OR BATH FACILITIES. Section II. 24-5. (f) R-MF - RESIDENTIAL - MULTIPLE FAMILY to be Arr,ended as Follows: Minimum lot area: 1. 2. One-family dwelling. Two-family dwelling. . . 6,OPO 3,000 square feet square feet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. feet square feet 2,000 square feet 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. feet. square feet 3. 4. 5. Patio house. . . . . . . . Row house. . . . . . . . Multiple family dwelling . . 2,000 i;588 i;588 6. All other uses . . . . . . . . . . 6,000 Section III. 24-6. (a) AR-l ACCOMMOD^TIONS REc~ATION - URBAN to be Amended as Follows: - 3 - Minimum lot area: , 1. 2. One-family dwelling. !\Yo-family dwelling. . 6,000 square feet 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet ~;;gg 2,000 square feet 3. 4. Patio house, row house . . M~~Eiple-faffii~y-awe~~iRg; ReEe~;-ffieEe~;-!eage. . . . . ~;;gg-s~~a~e-feeE-pe~ ~R~iffiiEea-~Rie-aRa ;Z;g-s~~al!e-ff'el;: pel!-~imieea-~Rie wieR-a-miRi~~m ~ee-al!ea-ef-6-gee , s~~al!e-feee. To be Replaced by 4. & 5. below~ 4. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING . . . . . 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNLIMITED DWEL- LING UNIT, 1,000 SQUARE FEET PER 1 BEDROOM; LIMITED Dw~LLING UNIT AND !50 SQUARE FEET PER STUDIO; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET. 5. HOTEL, MOTEL, LODGE. . " . . . . 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNLIMITED AND 1 BEDROOM; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT AND 750 SQUARE FEET PER STUDIO; LIMITED DWEL. LING UNIT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET. 5.6. BOarding house, rooming house, dormitory. . . . . . . . . . 500 square feet per - 4 - limited or unli- mited dwelling unit or per four persons of total capacity, which- ever is more res- trictive, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. -6.7. All other uses. . . . . . . . . .3,000 square feet. Section 1M: 24-6. (b) AR-2 ACCOMMODATION RECREATION - SUEURBAN to be Amended as Foilows: Minimum lot area: 1. One-family dwelling 2. Two-family dwelling . . 15,000 square feet 7,500 square feet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet . 3. Patio, house, row house . . 2,000 square feet 4. M~lei~le family awelliftg. . . ~,GGG-B~~a~e-feee-~e~ ~ftlimieea-~fti~-wic~ a-miftim~m-lec-area ef-l5,GGG-8~~are feee To be repealed and replaced as follows: 4. MULTIPLE FAMILY D\-mLLING. . . .. 2,000 SQUARE FEET PER UNLIMITED DWELLING UNIT, 1,750 SQUARE FEET PER 1 BEDROOM: LIMITED DWELLING AND 1,500 SQUAR~ ~ - 5 - 5. Bea~di~g-fte~se,-~eemi~g ftB~se,-de~ie~~y. . . . . . . . . . To be repealed and replaced as follo,;s: 5. BOARDING HOUSE, ROOMING HOUSE, DORMITORY. . . . . . . . . 6. Hotei,-motei,-iedge. . . . . . . . To be repealed and replaced as follows: 6. HOTEL, MOTEL, LODGE. . . . . . . FEET PER STUDIO; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT WITH A MINI- MUM LOT AREA OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET 5ee-s~~a~e-feeE-~e~ fB~~-~e~SBftS-ef EeEa~-ea~aeiey, WiEft-a-llIifti:;ft~1lI ~e~-a~ea-ef-~;5ee sei1:ia~e-feeE 750 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT OR FOUR PERSOl:\,S OF TOTAL CAPACITY, WHIC~lEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, WITH A MINIMUM LOT AllliA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET ~5e-~~~a~e-feeE-~e~ *illliEe6-~RiE-wiER a-llIiRilll~~-lBE-area ei-~;5Qe-a~~a~e feee . 1,500 SQUARE FEET PF.R UNLIMITED AND 1 BEDROOM; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT AND 750 SQUARE :<'EET PER STUDIO; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET 7. All other uses . . . . . . . . . 5,000 square feet - 6 - Section ,sv. 24-7. (b) C-C COMMERCIAL CORE to be Amended as Follows: Minimum lot area 1. Heee~;-meee~;-~eege. . . . . . . . . To be,repealed and replaced as follows: 1. HOTEL, MOTEL, LODGE. . . . . . . 2. Boardinghouse, rooming house, dormitory . . . . . . . . . 3. Bwe~~iRg-~Ries-aeeesse~y-ee a-w.~~e-ineeRsive-~se - . . . . . . ~;e-sq~a~e-feee-~e~ ~imieee-ewe~~iRg ~Rie-aRe-~;5ee sE\~a~e-feeE-~el' ~R~imieee-ewe~~~R5 ~Rie-wiek-a-ffiiRi- 1I\~l!l-~ee-a~ea-6f 6;eee-sq~a~e-feee ., 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNLIMITED AND 1 BEDROOM; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT AND 750 SQUARE FEET PER STUDIO; LIMITED ~JELLING UNIT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET. 500 square feet per ~ill\ieee-e~-~RH_- lIlieee dwelling unit or per each four persons of total capaci t:', whichever is more restrictive, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. T5e-~qtta=e-feet-per iimtted-dweiiing ttnit-and-i,S88 sqttare-feet-per (~'-- - 7 - , ~fi!iMieea-awe!!iftg ~fti~-wiEfi-a-mifti- M~M-!6E-a'l!ea-6f 6,eee-s~~a'l!e-feee wfie'l!e-EfieEe-a~e five-6'1!-M6'1!e-aWe!- !iftg-~fties-6ft-6fte !6E. To be repealed and replaced as follows: 3. MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS ACCESSORY INTENSIVE USE . DWELLING TO A MORE . . . . . 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNLIMITED vWELLING UNIT, 1,000 SQUARE FEET PER 1 BED- ROOM; UNITED DWEL- LING UNIT AND 750 SQUARE FEET PER STUDIO; LIMITED DWELLING UNIT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET WHERE THERE ARE FIVE OR MORE D~~LLING UNITS ON ONE LOT. 4. All other uses. . . . . . . . . . 3,000 square feet For purposes of density calculations, for each square foot of public arcade space created at ground level, or open space in addition to the required open space, 'on the build~ng site, credit shall be given for an additional two square feet of lot area in determining the allowable number of dwelling units. Note: Minimum lot ar.ea requirements for the C-l COMMERCIAL zone district (Sec. 24-7. (a)) and for the C-2 COMMERCIAL zone district (Sec. 24-7. (~)) are presently the same as the AR-1 ACCOMMODATIONS RECREATION-URBAN zone district (Sec. 24-6. (e)) and would therefore reflect the proposed changes in minimum lot area for AR-l as sho\VU above. -. .~-_...- the doremusjfleisher company May 24, 1972 Mr. Fred Wooden Assistant Planner P . 0 . Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Fred: Thank you for keeping me informed of your progress on making the proposed changes to Chapter 24 regarding square fcotage and lot area require- ments for dwelling units. The only recommendation for imp.~that I would make would be to increase the maximum~' studios l 540 quar~ feet and the maximur,", size for one bedroom units t 720 quare fi'e . recoldmendation is based on the incremental size that bUI ers use in constructing buildings. A studio unit designed in increments of six feet might be 18' x 30' with a total size of 540 square feet. By the same token a one bedroom urit might be 24' x 30' which would be 720 square feet. In both cases the sizes I am talking about are not over-sized units. As a matter of fact, they would more appropriately be considered average or moderate sized apartments. Sincerely yours, c--~ -~. Donald J . Fleisher DJF :gc post office box n-3/aspen. colorado 81611 pD3 925-21~2 ~ .......'- -" _.,....~---....,.,.......~.~- -- the doremusjfleisher company October 12, 1971 Mr. Herb Bartel, Reg iona I Planner Regional Planning Office P . O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Herb: According to our discussion several days ago, I will reiterate my ideas concerr.ing an inequity in the present zoning ordinance for the City of Aspen. The ordinance differentiates between an efficiency apartment and a one bedroom apartment by classifying the former as a limited unit and the latter as an unlimited unit. The land ratio requirement per unit for the limited is one unit per 750 square feet. The requirement for the unlimited unit is 1500 square feet. My concern is a parcel of land approximately 15.000square feet in size. I o.m presently permitted to build approximately twenty limited units or ten unlimited units. In other words, I am permitted to build twenty efficiency apartments or ten one bedroom apartments. According to the remodeling plans for the Aspen Block I have one efficiency that is as much as 498 square feet and I have one one bedroom unit that is as small as 460 square feet. Whereas they are not the average size for each classification the point has been made. The size of efficiency and one bedroom units can be and are approximately the same. In addition, both units are suitable for one single person, two single people or a couple. The fact that a builder might prefer to build one bedroom units rather than efficiency units is no indication that there will be an increase in either density or in the number of parking spaces required per unit. Specifically, I am concerned about a building tentatively planned for construction during the building period of 1972 en the west end of Block 27. Due to the nature of that parcel of land, specifically that it is bound on three sides by streets, one of which is Highway 82, it is my opinion that it is not post office box no3/aspen. colorado &1611/303 925-2122 -. H_"'-.' , . Mr. Herb Bartell Regional Planner October 12 I 1971 Page Two , a suitable place for families with children and pets. On the other hand, because of its proximity to the downtown core and to the main entrar.;:;e to Ajax Mountain it is an ideal spot for singles and couples I who I number onel do not have cars and, number two I do not have pets. I would like to have as tenants older I permanently employed persons in the community who desire to live in ap:lrtments that have more amenities than what can be provided in a typical efficiency. Again, I hesitate to do <.ny further planning until I am confident that there will be either some change in zoning ordinances permitting me to design and build the type of unit I want without being penalized or a variance to accomplish the sa~l,e end. As a result of this letter I I would appreciate your keeping me informed of any progress your office is making towatJ a correction of this existing inequ;ty in our present zoning ordinance. Sincerely yours I ~(?~/i- Donald J. Fleisher DJF :gc ~ 'M!"""" ".,,~.........^.~,-~..., ,-, ", """"-"~--""'~' .., ..