Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19700513 . -, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'G C.F.HQECKELB.B.!l.l.CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 13, 1970 Regular Meeting Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5:05 p.m. with Charles Vidal, William Tharp, James Breasted, John Gilmore, Francis Whitaker. Tom Wells excused. Seminar Building Board of Adjustment Joint Meeting Letter from representative of the University of Colorado requesting information relative to the zoning in the area behind the Middle School and if the use of a seminar build- ing for educational purposes would be allowed under the present zoning. Jerry Brown, Consultant, stated at the time the zoning ordinance was writeen visualized schools as being those which are public such as the elementary, middle and high schools, not for the purpose of bringing in visitors for seminars, etc. Chairman Molny read the correspondence and further reported the parking requirements for such a building would be 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the auditorium planned allows for 200 people. Clayton Meyring, Bmilding Inspector, stated a legal description would have to be obtained on whe~er this property is in or out of the City. Suggestion was made the school be contacted on their views of such a building in close proximity to the elementary and middle schools. Discussed the problem of congestion and access. Commission request the Chairman write a letter and state the route to follow is through the Board of Adjustment as schools are conditional uses and subject to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Molny stated the Board of Adjustment has requested a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning for the purpose of discussing the intention of the zoning ordinance as re- lates to legislating the present gasoline service stations as non~conforming uses and at the same time allowing repairs, painting, etc. with the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Presently a case before the Board of Adjustment for the remodeling of the Aspen Conoco Station. Additional problem of approximately 2 lots to be utilized after the station is rebuilt that presently have conforming uses on the lots. Board of Adjustment members were present and Chairman Hubbard reviewed with the Planning and Zoning Commission her con~ersation with Jerry Brown, Planner. Jerry Brown reported the main purpose in legislating gasoline service stations as conditional uses under the zoning ordinance was to encourage the construction of parking facilities along with the service facility. Further reported hearings were held on a proposed C-1A district along Highway 82 for the purpose of allowing gas stations as sock. This was not adopted. The intention of allowing gas stations as an accessory to a parking garage was to get the vehicles out of the downtown area in order to provide for pedestrain malls in the C-C Zones. At this same time the C-2 Zone was being proposed as an area allowing gas stations as such. Have now concluded service stations are not going to move into this area. ---- . . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HortKEL B. O. II L.. C~. Regular Meeting, Planning & Zoning, May 13, 1970 Discussed Highway 82 (Main Street) as to its' future as a main thoroughfare. It was pointed out the 2 present stations on Main Street will not affect planning of pedestrian malls. The block where the Conoco station is located had been considered as a trans- portation center. It was further pointed out another reason for allowing present stations to modernize is to keep gas stations from popping up on every corner. City Attorney Kern pointed out as relates to the 2 lots in question that would become non-conforming with a gasoline extension, a use variance can be granted where there are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. Further a variance can be granted for the expansion of a non-confirm- ing use on the present land. Mr. Jerry Brown submitted a memo to the Board relating to this problem. Mr. and Mrs. William Shaw were present and as the leasor of the property, they are in favor of this variance request. Discussed the leased parking spaces by Hample. Mr. Jack Walls, architect, informed the Board of Adjustment and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the lease has no bearing as Mr. Maddalone has no authority to lease spaces. Chairman Molny stated there are three problems in this situation as relates to the Planning and Zoning Commission: (1) The Master Plan has not been implemented (2) Do not know what the long range plans are for traffic circulation, etc. (3) The Planning and Zoning Commission at the present time is on middle ground as relates to pedestrians of the C-C Zone and traffic circulation. If the long range plans change the circulation, assume the present stations will phase themselves out. Mr. Vidal pointed out it is better to strengthen the station! on the perimeter of the C-C zone than those internally. Vidal moved to adjourn at 6:50 p.m., seconded by Tharp. All in favor, meeting adjourned. /c::./ . Qa~es, Secretary . .' .. "".,,_..,_...."',"~~_.._~__ __,_..._.. ,.,..~.^~_..n. -,.-._._-_.~.._<'-- Date: 13 May 1970 Memo to: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment From: Jern Brown Subject: Variance request for property on SW corner of Main and Galena Streets Following requests by Leon Wurl that I attend today's meeting of your Board, with the Planning and ZOning Commission of the City, I felt it best that I present by observations in writing as a means of recording my thoughts should questions arise later in regard to this particular request or subsequent re- quests for variance from the terms of the zOning ordinance. 1) The intent of the zoning ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The legis- lative procedures for accomplishing this purpose require that a limited number of zoning districts be developed, each cover- ing as broad a geographic area of the city as possible. Within the framework of such relatively general zoning district regu- lations, experience has shown that it is difficult if not im- possible to provide for all aspects of urban design on any par- ticular piece of property within a given zone district. It is for this reason that your Board has been empowered by the City's zoning ordinance - following Colorado State Statutes - to grant variances from terms of the adopted zoning ordinance. The state statutes specifically state, " . . . Where there are practical difficulties or unnecesSary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of such ordinance, the Board of Adjustment shall have the power in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of the regulations or provisions of such ordi~ nance relating to the use, construction or alteration of bu1ld~ ings or structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done" (139-6-7). What you are to determine then is a reasonable relationship between the public good and the hardship imposed on the property owner. 2) The use of this property as a gasoline service station was established as non-conforming by the re-zoning of the City unc1"~taken in 1966. At that time it was felt that an oppor- tunity existed to encourage the building of service stations in conjunction with parking garages in the central commercial area. 3) In 1967, the Planning and ZOning Commission, acting as advi- sors to the City 9ouncll, recognized a problem with the previously adopted ordinance in regard to service stations. Existing sta- tions were prohibited from remodeling and lack of development in the areas designated for new station locations had effectively combined to lock the city into a situation of having four deter_ iorating service stations. The Commission studied a proposed C - I - A district generally including the fringes of the central commercial area bordering Colorado Highway 82, which would permit service stations. Violent local opposition scuttled this proposal. The property under consideration now was included in that proposed district. 4) In 1968, I prepared an analysis of parking garage locations in relation to potential mall areas and arterial circulation for the city. The subject property was part of one garage location. Nothing concrete came of that proposal. 5) The proposal before you as I understand it is to remodel the present service station including expansion from the present four lots used for station purposes as well as an additional lot to the west - presently used for other purposes. I am informed that 'the five-lot area is necessary to construct the proposed bullding. The advantage to the immediate vicinity and the city in general as I see it is to replace a partially outdoor opera- tion with a relatively enclosed operation. with a bUilding more compatible with adjacent buildings than the present structure. 6) Granting of this request would not set a precedent for addi- tional variance requests because a) it is the replacement of an existing service station located in proximity with arterial cir- culation; b) request for another service station site in the same district would require a re-zoning in my opinion because it would fall under the classification of a legislative function to delineate new land use regulations rather than an administra- tive function to alleviate an existing situation. ,7) Assuming that property owners in the immediate vicinity are aware of this proposal - witness the uproar generated in 1968 over the proposed C - I - A district - I believe you should . carefully evaluate any comments received from such persons in reaching your. decision. Although you are not legally bound by such comments, their consideration 'is a part of your duties.