Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19720406 . ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" ~I C. F. tlOECKEL B. a. & ~. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 6, 1972 Meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman Robin Molny with James Breasted, Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard. Also present Assistant Planner Fred Wooden. BROWNELL SUBDIVISION - Commission left City Hall for a field trip to the site. Also in attendance Attorney Art Daily, Surveyor and Applicants. Meeting resumed at City Hall at 5:35 p.m. James Breasted stated he had a conflict in this case. As instructed by the Commission, plats were reviewed showing the addition of the placement of the buildings on the site. Mr. Daily reported the plats are being submitted as a preliminary as well as a final plat. Surveyor stated he had made an incorrect statement at the last meeting in that the ditch does go into Lot 4 and that will be shown on the final plat. Ditch originates from the Mo~y Gibson mine. Mr. Wooden stated he felt he may have confused everyone at the last meeting in trying to bring in something that was felt applied which was the intent of a substandard lot under R-6 zone. The Commission is faced with two possibilities: (1) If the right-of-way is included for calculating lot footage, the City would be in a position where Clayton Meyring could not turn down a permit for a duplex; (2) If it is not included, the one lot would be unbuildable and would have to go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Feel under the subdivision regulations the Commission does have the right to look at the usable lot area to see if it is suitable for building on. Question was raised if using the right-of-way for calculations already set by precedent or would this set the precedent. Chairman Molny replied that when this request was reviewed, the pecularies of the area were considered and in doing so right-of-way was mentioned. But at that time the Commission had nothing to look at at that time. If the Commission had what is now being submitted, perhaps there would have been a different feeling as to including right-of-way. Mrs. Brownell stated the lot lines were not drawn until the footage had been figured out. Chairman Molny pointed out the reason for requiring 60' along right-of-way was to get the width on the lots. Surveyor for Tio-Co Management submitted the following letter and request it be made a part of the minutes: - 1- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"'li C.F.HOECKElB.B.1t l. CO. Continued Meeting, P & Z, 4/6/72, continued. (See letter attached to minutes) Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector stated he had re- viewed the site and in looking at the site visually, the buildings would not look as bad as it was imagined, when you consider the shape of the road and what will happen to the north. Chairman Molny referred to the letter and stated there was no right-of-way agreement made, it was merely an indication on the part of the Commission that they would look favorably at it. No decisions can be made until the Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat. Charles Collins stated he objected to the one sub- standard lot in approving this plat. It was felt when utilizing the right-of-way was considered that this would give them more flexibility in planning the area and not satisified with the way it shaped up. Questioned if all alternatives had been checked into. Further stat- ed he felt they should consider PUD. Surveyor stated they had looked at the layout as many ways as could be thought of. All others would be worse than what is now being submitted. Could evenly divide the road frontage with the two lots and that would set the buildings closer than they are now. A line could be put between the garage and the other building. Mr. Brownell stated that if they went RMF, the old structure would have to be removed. Chairman Molny stated the distribution of buildings is bad, feel this property should be treated on a PUD basis so that the buildings could be closer together Mr Brownell stated they did not like the idea of bunching the buildings. Question was asked if the Brownell's had considered buying additional property to meet the requirements. Brownells stated they had and people not willing to sell. Chairman Molny stated he would rather see the area divided into two lots rather than three. Collins stated that because of the tight area on the west side of Gibson, the Commission has some reason for considering the right-of-way but on the east side do not feel there is any problem and do not feel right- of-way should be considered. Chairman Molny pointed out if all the area were zoned RMF could have a total of 16 units. Collins moved to deny the application for subdivision as platted on the basis that two lots do not meet the minimum square footage requirements in the R-6 portion. - 2 - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.CO. Continued Meeting, P & Z, 4/6/72, continued. Seconded by Goodhard. Mr Daily request clarificat~on on the motion, motion to mean that the right-of-way will not be included in the calculations for footage. Commission stated that was correct. Surveyor questioned the Commission if they duplex, would the Commission go for that. Collins stated yes. took out one Molny and Chairman Molny explained with PUD they could exceed the height and adjust the setbacks. Mr. Bartel, City/County Planner explained that with PUD would have zero lot lines, applicants could change their order from a duplex to a four plex. Mrs. Brownell stated for the record that they felt they had been lead astray. They would have made it one lot if they had known they could not use the right-of-way, but as it is time, money and effort has been spent in the wrong direction. Collins pointed out that he felt this was going to be a preliminary plat and wish they had had the pre- liminary plat to consider before final plat was submitted. Molny stated the Commission would like to see this on a PUD basis and under PUD would prefer not to include the right-of-way. Roll call vote - Collins aye; Goodhard aye; Breasted abstain; Molny aye. Motion carried, plat denied. Collins moved to adjourn at 6:30 p.m., seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, meeting adjourned '/--'-j 'fL" / ..J . / //. ". / " y~')(.C./ '--Lo~raine Graves, City Clerk - .",."~~~,.....~-~---,,-_.,,,_. . TRI-CO Management, Inc. Planning' Design' Surveying' Engineering' Construction and Management of Land Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 April 5, 1972 Comments on the Brownell Subdivision In January, 1972, the Brownells applied for a building permit to erect a duplex on the portion of their property zoned R-6. It was refused on the grounds that the property was unsubdivided. On February 1, 1972, the Brownells appeared at the City Planning Commission meeting and asked the.Commission what was required. The Commission asked the planning office to determine whether or not a subdivision was necessary. On February 15, 1972, at the Planning commission meeting, the planning office expressed the opinion that the subdivision reg- ulations did apply, and the city engineer recommended that the Brownells be required to dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way for Gibson Avenue. The Brownells asked the Commission whether they could use the right-of-way for density if they dedicated it. After considerable discussion, which is not shown in the minutes, the Commission agreed that the Brownells could use the entire right-of-way for density purposes. The Brownells subsequently asked Tri-Co Management to design a subdivision of their property. Since the entire property was now involved rather than one duplex, Tri-Co proceeded to sub- divide the property on the basis of the right-of-way agreement previously mentioned, and in accordance with the city subdivision regulations. In the process of designing the subdivision, the city building inspector was consulted twice by Tri-Co and once by the Brownells as to the acceptability of Lot 2. In all three instances the building inspector had no Objection. He has stated to Tri-Co that he still has no Objection if the Planning Commission allows use of the right-of-way as agreed.-- At the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 1972, comments were made by members of the Commission as to the shape and size of the lots in this subdivision. We would like the Commission to note that the Brownell land, like many parcels in the Aspen area, has an odd shape. When these parcels are split up according to specific requirements they must result in odd shaped lots. We believe that part of the flavor of Aspen is due to imaginative use of odd parcels and buildings. We see no reason for square or rectangular development when such development will not log- ically fit the surrounding terrain, ownership or improvements. We also feel that an actual field inspection of the Brownell property should be made by the Commission before acceptance 07 rejection of the subdivision plat and that such an inspection wl11 reveal both the reasons for and the suitability of the lot design.