Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19680909 ,... ....... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B./tL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 9, 1968 Meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 4:10 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman William Tharp Mayor Robert Barnard Francis Whitaker George Heneghan Yvan Tache Also Present: Building Inspector William Kestner Absent: Councilman John Benninghoff - excused Dale Mars - excused Chairman Tharp instructed the Secretary to check on the number of meetings Councilman Benninghoff has missed. MINUTES Whitaker made a motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 1968 as mailed. Seconded by Heneghan. Roll call vote - Whitaker aye; Heneghan aye; Tache aye; Barnard aye; Tharp aye. BUILDING REVIEW Artur Kuen - Garage - Building Inspector reported two stop orders had been issued on this garage. Continued construction after the first stop order. Second stop order requested Mr. Kuen's appearance before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Kuen was not present. Barbara Fasching, 20 units - Plans cussed the curb cuts and parking. were shown on the plans. were reviewed by the Commission. Dis- Commission agreed enough parking spaces Heneghan made a motion to recommend approval of Barbara Fasching plans to the building inspector. Seconded by Whitaker. Roll call vote - Tache aye; Heneghan aye; Whitaker aye; Barnard aye Tharp aye. Continental Inn - Drawings showing the 3 addition to the plans for the building. would be workable. levels of parking were submitted in Discussed if the parking as shown Commission questioned Mr. Cantrup if he would be willing to give a letter of committment that the lodge will not open until the parking spaces are availabe. Mr. Cantrup stated he would be willing to give such a letter to the City. Mr. Cantrup stated he had met with Jerry Brown and he felt since there is frontage on 2 sides, he could measure from either side. Mr. Cantrup request to use Dean Street as the frontage in figuring the set backs and Galena Street as frontage in figuring the height. Building would be uring the height. 1-1/2' too high if Dean Street is ~sed as frontage in fig- Nt} 54 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOil"''" C.F.HoECKElS.S./tl.Co. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 9/9/68, continued. Barnard made a motion to instruct the Secretary to obtain regarding the meaning of frontage. Seconded by Heneghan. Tache aye; Barnard aye; Heneghan aye; Whitaker aye; Tharp a legal op~nwn Roll call vote - aye. Whitakermentioned to the Commission action must be taken on these plans within the 30 day period. Mr. Cantrup request the Commission act on the parking only. Whitaker made a motion the plans for the Continental Inn be rejected and returned to the building inspector with the recommendation they do not meet the height requirements. Seconded by Tache. Roll call vote - Heneghan aye; Tache aye; Whitaker aye; Barnard aye; Tharp aye. BLOCK 73 and 74 USES Chairman Tharp stated he was uncertain about the uses in these two blocks and would take this up with the building inspector. POST OFFICE LOCATION Chairman Tharp stated he had received a call from the Forest Service and the Post Office is still trying to negoiate with the Forest Service for a post office facility on their land at the west end of town. Forest Service is not in favor of the post office on their land. Chairman Tharp reported apparently the post office officials are willnot go against the City's zoning and then on the other hand negoiating to go against the City zoning. saying they they are , Building Inspector reported a permit had been applied fOT on the temporary metal building at the present post office location but could not be acted upon since the plans were not complete. PUBLIC HEARING - DUPLEX Chairman Tharp read the proposal for the definition of a duplex as attached to these proceedings. Chairman Tharp opened the public hearing for comments. Mr. Clark reported he had many duplexes in town and they have always been over or under the recommended 20%. Chairman Tharp stated to define a duplex would be to limit the design. Barnard stated perhaps sharing a common floor should be included. Heneghan reported the 20% would allo~ flexibility in design and would keep people from building 2 houses on a piece of property. Whitaker questioned if the square footage allowed or an increase in the set backs would solve the problem. Mr. C. M. Clark stated the City is making the zoning ~o complex and is it necessary to have all these controls. Nt} 55 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HoECKElB.B./tl.CD. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 9/9/68, continued. Ms. Fasching stated if they do not want duplexes, then they should not zone for duplexes. Chairman Tharp closed the public hearing as there were no further comments. Barnard suggested the following worning be added to the definition as proposed: "and sharing one common ceiling and floor in whole or in part." Heneghan stated he could not see where connecting them is going to make them any more attractive. Tache stated on the petition submitted to the Planning and Zoning on the duplex by the golf course, the people were against the way it looked more than the idea of a duplex. Tharp stated he felt that zoning tends to standardize design. It creates more of a problem than it solves. Opposed to those ordinances that tend to stand- ardize design. Tache made a motion that the Commission recommend to the City Council the following definition of a duplex as statedby Barnard; "11-1-2: (i) Dwelling, Two-Family: A detached building containing only two dwelling units sharing one common wall to the extent of 20% and sharing one common ceiling and floor in whdeor in part." Seconded by Barnard. Roll call vote - Whitaker nay; Heneghan nay; Tharp nay; Tache aye; Barnard aye. Motion fails. PUBLIC HEARING - USES C-2 ZONE Chairman Tharp opened the public hearing and read the proposal of the Com- mission as attached hereto. Mr. C. M. Clark read a prepared statment as attached hereto to the Commission. Also stated that in 1967 he attempted to install a 1000 gallon gasoline tank and a 500 gallon diesel fuel tank and the City stopped him because they called it a filling station. Do agree~with all of Paragraph 7. William Dunaway stated isn't the word unusual open to interpretation. Tharp stated he was not certain as to what an unusual traffic hazard, noise etc would be. Mr. Clark stated in the ordinances that he has seen, glare, noise etc are stated more definately. There being no further comments Chairman Tharp closed the public hearing. Heneghan stated he felt the word unusual would not hold up in court. Whitaker suggested the Commission have an attorney review this. Have nothing to measure by but the feeling of the Commission at the time relating to unusual. Discussed if the uses allowed or the uses not allowed should be outlined. Whitaker stated under 6-(a) it would be impossible to confine noise, dust etc to the premises. N? 56 ~- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~oR"''' C. F. HOECKEl D. D. It l. CD. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 9/9/68, continued. Barnard stated he felt a concrete batch plant should be under exclusions. Whitaker stated his interpretation would be that a concrete batch plant would be permissible, the main thing is control. Main objection is waste material and this is taken care of by the Water Pollution Control. Revised proposal was read by Chairman Tharp as follows: "11-1-7 Uses Permitted 1. Any permitted use of the AR-l Accommodations Recreation district except patio houses, and of the C-l Commercial district, subject to all use, lot area and yard requirements of those districts regulations unless otherwise specified below; 2. Any general retail or service commercial use including the following and similar uses: vehicle and equipment rental, sales, storage and repair; 3. Limited industrial uses including the following and similar uses: builders supply and lumber yard, contractor's yard, dry-cleaning plant and laundry, fabrication and repair of building materials and components, man- ufacture and repair of sporting goods, printing and publishing plants, transportation depot, warehousing and storage, shop-craft industry, provided no industrial waste disposal problems will be created. 4. Recreation and entertainment establishment. Uses - Conditional 5. Any conditional use of the AR-l Accommodations Recreation district and of the C-l Commercial district, subject to all use, lot area and yard requirements of that district unless specified below; 6. Drive-in restaurants, gasoline service stations, automobile washigg facilities and any limited industrial use listed under paragraph 3 above which may create industrial waste disposal problems subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment provided the following limitations are placed on all such uses: a. All permitted principal uses producing noise, dust, fumes, odors, smoke, vapor, vibrations, glare, lights or waste shall be confined to a completely enclosed structure. b. Refuse areas shall be concealed from view from abutting rights-of-way and adjoining residential districts. Uses - Not Permitted 7. Uses such as alfalfa dehydration, automobile wrecking yeards, cement, asphalt, lime, gypsum or plaster of Paris manufacturing, fertilizer manufacturing, slaughter houses, commercial hog ranch, livestock or poultry feed yards, acid manufacturing, explosive manufacturing or storage, glue manufacturing, fat rendering or distillation of bones, petroleum refining mining or smelting of ore, garbage, offal or dead animal reduction or dumping stock yards, the above ground storage of flammable liquids or gases, livery stables or livestock auction." Whitaker made a motion to instruct the City to obtain a legal op~n~on on this proposal. Seconded by Heneghan. Roll call vote - Whitaker aye; Heneghan aye; Barnard nay; Tache aye; Tharp aye. Motion carried. Barnard stated he had voted nay since he felt a concrete batch plant should be listed under Uses - Not Permitted. Nt} 57 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOil"''' C.F.HOECKElD.D.ltl.CD. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 9/9/68, continued. Continental Inn - Attorney Stewart was present and request the Commission grant permission to proceed with the parking, making this as a separate request. Commission stated this was not submitted as a separate request therefore could not be considered separate from the buidling. Mr. Kuen was present and Chairman Tharp stated to Mr. Kuen to get his permit. Plans had been approved at a previous meeting. Barnard made a motion to adjourn at 6:35 p.m., seconded by Tache. All in favor, meeting adjourned. - ~ ~~ Lorraine Graves, Secretary ( N~ 58 A REVISION OF USES IN THE C-2 ZONE 11-1-7 Uses Pe~mitted 1. Any permitted use of the AR-l Accommodations Rec~eation district except patio houses, and of the C-l Commercial district; s~bject ~o all use, lot area and yard requirements of ~nose districts regulations ~nless otherwise specified below; 2. A~y general retail or service commercial use including the following and similar uses: vehicle and equipment rental, sales, storage and repair; 3. Limited industrial uses including the following a~d similar ~ses: builders supply and lumber yard, contrac~or's yard, dry-cleaning plant and laundry, fabrication and repair of building materials and components, manufacture and repair of sporting goods, prin~ing and publishing plants, t~ansportation depot, warehousing and storage, shop-craft i2dustry, PROVIDED NO UNUSU.'\.L c.'c:\FFIC HAZARD, NOISE, DUST, FUMES, ODORS,. SMOKE, VAPOR, VIBRAT_ON, GLARE, LIGHTS OR INDUSTRIAL WASTE 0ISPOSAL PROBLEMS WILL BE CREATED. 4. Recreation and en'certai:"Inent establishment. Uses - Conditional 5. k,y conditional use of .t:,e AR-l Accommodations Recreatio~ ais~rict and of ~he c-: Con~nercial district, subject to all ',,'e, :"0'1:. area and yard re(r~irements of that district unless specifi~~ below; ~. Drive-in restaurants, gasoline service stat~ons, ~uto- mobile Hashing facilities and ANY LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DS2 LIS~2D UNDE~ PA~,GRAPH 3 ABOVE WHIC2 YlliY C~EATE UNUSUAL TRAFFIC HAZARDS, NOISE, D::.iST, ?t:;:,ms, ODORS, S;V:OKE, VAPOR, VIBRATION, GLA,m, ~IGI;TS OR nmDSTRIAL WASTE DIS?OSA~ PROBl:.m"S subject to approval ofche 30a~d of Adjustment p~ovided the following limitations are p~aced on all such uses: (a) All permitted principal uses shall be ope~ated entirely within a completely enclosed structure. (b) Noise, dust, fUInes, odors, smoke, vapor, vibracions, glare, lights or waste shal~ be confined to the premises.of the lot upon which such use is located. (e) Outdoor sto~age, eq~i~~ent and refuse a~eas shall be concealed from ~iew from abutting rights-of-way and aujoining ~eside~~i~~ districts. ~2S - Not Permittee Uses such as alfc,lfa dehydration, automobile wrec: .g '1&:: .s, c'c"'.1ent, asphalt, lime, gypsu;u or plaster of Par:.:; ma;... f2< _',.1::.:..~:g I fertilizer manufac.turin~;, slaughter houses, :orrnnc._:. ~.al hoS ~a~ci. livestock or poultry feed yards, acid manufacturi~. eX~._~)S~.,.:le manufacture or storage, <'lue manufacturing, :Eat re:_....2::ing o:~ .2 .~:~2.=-ation of bones, petrolc',:~:-;1 refining, mining or sme=... ..::.:-~g 0::: _:2: ga:c::>c.,;,,::;.. I offc..l or dec:.c. ar-~~~i.nal reduction or dur,l;?.:..ng, _vck yo.::"- 3; ~~:G aDov2 s::ound storage L/: flammable liquids 0:: gase""", I li',:. ~.~y stables 0::: livestock a-.::.ctiOi.1. DUPLEX Definition proposed by Administrator Wurl. 11-1-2: (i) Dwelling, Two-Family: A detached building containing only two dwelling units sharing one common wall to the extent of ~a percent. i ! i ------- ., -2- I doubt seriously that all encompasing statements, without express and definite guidelines, will hold up in court, particularly since the advent of the new and revised Title n. The Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council have changed the changes so many times that the complete fundamental and basic fairness of the Planning & Zoning Code has been neutered. I believe that these inconsistancies, lawsuits and general public disfavor will prove me to be correct if this last change is instigated. In one of the seven latest lawsuits Hogenson Concrete Company was upheld by the court in their right to build a pre-mix concrete plant in this area. It is strange to me that with one operating pre-mix plant and one proposed pre-mix plant operating in this area, as in accordance with the Master Plan, you can now say "We want a zoning ordinance so written that if we don't like a business man because of his political affiliation, or his race, or his color we can say 'Look, right here in 11-1-7 it says you cannot establish anything that might cause unusual vibration (i. e. heavy truck? )" I suppose you could also rule out establishing a settling pond because when the sun is shining it causes an unusual GLARE off the pond. It is indeed humiliating to me that I have been made a "Non Conforming Use" by Title 11, in my present location, when at the present time I am beginning to move my operations from this non-conforming area down to an area which I purchased in 1965 as a light industrial area (and again upheld by the 1966 Master Plan as being light industrial). You people are again attacking the owners rights in this area and, in effect, saying "We stand behind the subter- fuge of representing 2,000 local residents and we can destine the legitimate businesses in Aspen area to be either forced into being unable to operate or forced completely out of the area or make it impossible for new businesses to be established. I believe, gentlemen, that this is another scene in a long running play on one man politics. . . . . that has been consistently been thrown out of court. I sincerely thank you for your patience in hearing me out, and truly hope that logical thinking and good business sense will prevail. CMC:pw - -{, I] - / ; /. ''',:{ (1,/ I. .J ~-::f1c..::lJ:).D 'r')~ ::rl'Y: ::rl:..!.J-02j.'L!:- ::rj~~l D-O:..LJ.2~ BOX 566 30:-j-92'j-3111 5?6 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPF.N. C-OLOQADC 81611 DIRF-CT D;::::NVEF? 30'l~?c;"-T74 September 10, 1968 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Attention: Mr. William Tharp, Chairman Gentlemen: Per your request at the August 13, 1968, Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting, I am herewith submitting to you gentlemen for your considera- tion the following comments. Under 11-1-7 Uses Permitted, Paragraph No.3, you have proposed to add "PROVIDED NO UNUSUAL TRAFFIC HAZARD, NOISE, DUST, FUMES, ODORS, SMOKE, VAPOR, VIBRATION, GLARE, LIGHTS OR INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS WILL BE CREATED". As you gentlemen are well aware, the area that we are specifically talking about, in which I own 2. 5 acres, was projected to be a light industrial area by the Master Plan of 1966. At that time, operating in the area were heavy metl and welding shops, a pre-mix concrete plant and many other light in- dustrial type uses. These types of uses are still being operated in this area. I object strenuously to now being subjected to rules that, if read and enforced to the letter, would absolutely negate all uses that are now being allowed. . . and have been allowed. . . in this area. As I am sure you realize, the last seven lawsuits brought against the City and/ or the City Administration have been lost due to the nebulous and incon- sistent matter in which the City has tried to enforce loosely worded Ordinances, I sincerely believe that without providing the necessary guidelines to spell out just what constitutes a "traffic hazard" (could this possibly be my fifty-two presently operating cars and trucks?), without spelling out exactly what is "noise" (my normal day to day operations with the repairing of heavy equip- ment, warehouse, etc.), without saying what constitutes a "dust" problem or what is to constitute a "vapor" (could this be warm exhaust gasses on a cold morning?). Without some definition, I can assure you people that. at the present time and under the present City Administration, there is absolutely nothing I can possibly do in the way of conducting my day to day operations without the Administration finding some violation, as enumerated above, You have, under Uses Conditional, Paragraph 6, done exactly the same thing saying in essence "We don't know what we want to stop, we just know that if we insert enough nebulous inconsistencies, regardless of what may ever trans- pire, the Administration will be in a position to say 'no"'.