Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19680326 "' FORM ~~ C. F. HOECKEL a. B. I:l L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 26, 1968 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman William Tharp Mayor Robert Barnard Councilman John Benninghoff Leon Wurl Joel Hartmeister George Heneghan - excused absence Francis Whitaker - excused absence Also Present: Marvin Reynolds - Building Inspector Jerry Brown - Planner Fitzhugh Scott - City Attorney MINUTES Mayor Barnard made a motion to approve the minutes of March 1, 1968 as mailed. Seconded by Joel Hartmeister. Roll call vote - Barnard aye; Benninghoff aye; Tharp aye; Hartmeister aye; Wurl aye. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Tharp opened the public hearing on the following and stated the Commission would consider each item as listed one at a time: Condominiums Patio House Row House Service Yard Section 11-1-7 (a) maximum height of building on corner lot Section 11-1-9 (a) 5 Fences Jerry Brown's definition of a condominium as follows: "Condominium ownership recognized - Condominium ownership..... shall be deemed to consist of a separate fee simple estate in an individual air space unit of a multirunit property together with an undivided fee simple interest in common elements. Definition - (1) An 'individual air space unit' shall consist of any enclosed room or rooms occupying all or part of a floor or floors in a building of one or more floors to be used for residential, professional, commercial or industrial purposes and which has access to a public street. It can be noted from the above definition that the condominium principle can apply to any use of a building. To preclude the development of condominiums through zoning, the use rather than the ~ype of ownership would have to be regulated. This is the approach recommended requiring a certain percentage of commercial space in the C-l District. Subdivision regulations do not apply as the land is one of the common elements." It was pointed out that this is the def~~tion of a condominium as stated N9 5 "-" FORM ~G C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Reg. Meeting, P & Z, March 26, 1968, continued. in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Discussed recent decision on a case at the Highlands - Hurst's builling as relates to a condominium and lodge. Jerry Brown pointed out he mentioned subdivision because in a condominium you do not divide the land. Leon Wurl made a motion the Planning and Zoning accept Jerry Brown's recommendation as relates to the definition of a condominium and submit this recommendation to Council. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Hartmeister aye; Tharp aye; Barnard aye; Benninghoff aye; Wurl aye. ---------- The following is the recommendation from Jerry Brown as the definition of a patio house and row house: "Patio House - a semi-detached or attached one-family dwelling (sharing one or two common walls with adjacent, similar dwellings) which may be in single ownership developed as part of a project containing at least 4 similar dwellings and so situated on the lot that the exterior walls of the dwelling extend to the lot lines of the property except for required set- backs on the periphery of the project and with a minimum of 25% of the area encompassed by the exterior walls unoccupied or unobstructed from the ground upward. Patio houses are limited to one story above grade. Row House - a semi-detached or attached one-family dwelling (sharing one or two common walls with adjacent, similar dwellings) which may be in single o~ership, developed as part of a project containing at least 4 similar dwellings and so situated on the lot that the exterior walls of the dwelling extend to the side lot lines of the property except for required side yard set backs on the periphery of the project. Row houses may be one story or more, subject to height limitations of the district regulations of the district in which it is located. Note: Minimum lot width for patio and row houses under 11-1-5 and 11-1-6 should be deleted providing greater freedom of project design. Minimum lot area under the same provisions applies on a project density basis with the actual lot size reduced in area and the excess land in common ownership, devoted to access, recreation and parking." Discussed if there should be one, two and maybe three common walls. Commis- sion agreed there could be as many as three common walls. Also discussed whether may should be changed to shall. Also what is semi-detached. Jerry Brown pointed out the basic difference between a patio and row house is a patio house must not be more than one story above grade and a row house must be more than one story above grade. Also the fact that only 75% of the patio house site can be covered. Basically a patio house has the patio as a yard within the building. A row house is more typical of our apartment type buildings where you have apartments that are joined side by side in single ownership. A multiple family dwelling you can't sell in fee simple. That is the difference between a row house and a multiple family dwelling. N9 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!G C.F.HOECKfLB.O.l\ol.<;(l. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 3/26/68, continued. Question was asked if it is necessary for a patio house to take up all the land. Jerry Brown stated it was not necessary, but it is possible. Zoning is always sort of minimum or maximum usage. This patio house was mentioned in the Master Plan because it might be a way to get some single family dwellings on the land in a project fashion that would give us some resident type homes for sale. Physically they would resemble the Villager Condominium which has interior courts only they would be larger interior courts. Would visualize at least 4 in a project. Commission agreed the definition as written was confusing. Commission instructed Jerry Brown and Tam Scott to submit a better definition. Leon Wurl made a motion to table patio and row house. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Barnard aye; Tharp aye; Hartmeister aye; Wurl aye; Benninghoff aye. ------------ Chairman Tharp read Jerry Brown's proposed definition of a Service Yard as follows: . "Service Yard - any area utilized .....principal building or use. Such service yard shall not occupy any required front, side or rear yard except as permitted by provisions relating to accessory buildings in the district regulations of this chapter. Note: Minimum rear yard under (2.) All other uses, 11-1-7, C-l and C-2 Commercial shocld be amended to allow 1/3 of the required open area to be devoted to a service yard." Marvin Reynolds questioned what constituted a service yard, is it trash cans, large equipment, etc. Jerry Brown suggested in all commercial and accommodations zones fence any open storage on the lot. Also stated he was not exactly sure what the City was requiring for a definition. Leon Wurl made a motion that service yards be tabled for further study and request the Building Inspector and Jerry Brown and other City Officials submit a recommendation. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote _ Wurl aye; Tharp aye; Hartmeister aye; Barnard aye; Benninghoff aye. ---------- Maximum height of bufiding on corner lot. Chairman Tharp read the definition as proposed by Jerry Brown as follows: "Maximym height of building..... .39 feet, not to exceed four stories above grade. The total floor area of the structure above ground shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the total lot area of the lot on which the structure is located; further provided that for each square foot of public way space or public arcade space created at ground level on the lot, credit shall be given for an additional two square feet of floor area in the structure over the allowable 2-1/2 : 1 ratio. The 39 foot maximum height limitation shall still N9 7 ..~-" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F,HOECKELD.B.ItL.CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 3/26/68, continued. be observed in this latter instance; and further provided that no building or structure shall be constructed higher than 30 feet above grade within 10 feet of any dedicated street or alley adjacent to the lot. On a lot bordered on the sides by intersecting streets or alleys, the owner need observe the 30 foot height limitation along only one street or one alley and shall have a choice on which to observe. Where an entire half- block is occupied, the owner need only observe the 30 foot height limitation along the street frontage having the greatest horizontal dimension, as well as the limitation along the alley. Where an entire block is occupied, the owner need only observe the 30 foot height limitation along the two street frontages having the greatest horizontal dimensions. For purposes of this section, a story shall be considered above grade if over 50% of its clear interior height is above the established street grade as defined in 11-1-9(1) Height Provisions. Comment: The above is a suggested revision of the 37-1/2 foot height limitation, based on the fdlowing reasoning. In the C-l and C-2 Districts, the intention is to encourage commercial use af buildings. A commercial floor should have about 12 feet in overall height to provide good retail and assembly area space, including the structure of the floor above. Residential or accommodations space requires about 9 feet in height. Thus, 39 feet would permit one commercial floor - 12' - plus three dwelling floors - 27' - for a total of 39'. The limitation along streets and alleys would limit the area of the top floor - 9' in height - leaving a building 30 feet high within 10' of a public street or alley as required. This proposal should be considered in relation to a provision for the ground floor or 25% of total building area to be commercial, whichever is greater." Jerry Brown pointed out the reason for pulling back on the top floor is to get away from a canyon affect. Discussed the affect onpresent commercial buildings if they wish to add additional stories. It was pointed out that allowing height of 39', you would have 2 more floors of canyon. Leon Wurl made a motion to table maximum height of buildings oncorner lots for further study. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Benninghoff aye; Wurl aye; Barnard aye; Hartmeister aye; Tharp aye. Fences - Leon Wurl made a motion to table fences for further study. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. All in favor,motion carried. Chairman Tharp closed the Public Hearing, LEASED PARKING SPACES Chairman Tharp read the following legal opinion rendered by Attorney ScOtt: Dear Bill: My opinion as to the above matter, pursuant to the Commission's request, N9 8 -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKHS.B.a L.CO. Reg. Meeting P & Z, 3/26/68, continued. is that it is proper under the existing Aspen Zoming Ordinance for an owner to meet the applicable off-street parking requirements by way of leasing spaces therefore so long as said owner complies with the provisions related to the "location of required off-street parking" under 11-1-9 (f) Off-Street Parking. Further, each lease arrangement ought to be scrutinized as to its practicability and general legal validity. There is no authority in Colorado directly on this point of leasing spaces for mff-street parking in an adjacent area. The Supreme Court of Michigan in Uday v. City of Dearborn, a 1959 decision, held that a City ordinance was valid which permitted owners of business property to use adjoining residentially zoned land, if it could be obtained, for off-street parking. There is a 1965 decision from the state of Nebraska which stands for the proposition that there may be justification for requiring the off-street parking to be on the lot itself or within a short distance from it, considering that the basic problem, congestion in the streets, may not otherwise be solved. If the Commission feels that there is something lacking under 11-1-9 (f) in this particular type of connection, then it should recommend to City Council the appropriate changes in the zoning ordinance. Considering the recent decisions of the Colorado Supreme Court in the Denver Buick and Redding - Miller cases, which cast a cloud on off- street parking requirements altogether, it striked me that Colorado municipalities, at the least, should endeavor to make any type of off- street parking requirements as unonerous as possible. /s/ Fitzhugh Scott III Attorney Scott sugges t the Commission give the Builling Inspector certain standards in which to go by. BUILDING REVIEW Jack Jenkins - Plan for a garage and automotive repair on North Mill Street. Marvin Reynolds reported all requirements had been met. Jerry Brown and Attorney Scott left the meeting. Commission reviewed the plans. Leon Wurl made a motion the plans submitted by Jack Jenkins be approved. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Benninghoff aye; Hartmeiste r aye; Tharp aye; Wurl aye; Barnard aye. Ross Building - Addition of second story. Marvin Reynolds reported to the Commission he does not have the required set backs and he will be going before the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the set backs. Owner is requesting the Planning and Zoning approve the second story addition pending a variance on the set backs. Commission agreed this would be a bad precedent to make. N9 9 ...._---,,-"", FORM!G C.F.HOECKELB.a.&l.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 3/26/68, continued. Joel Hartmeister made a motion these plans be referred to the Board of Adjustment. Seconded by Councilman Benninghoff. Roll call vote _ Benninghoff aye; Tharp aye; Hartmeister aye; Barnard aye; Wurl aye. Tom Daly Project - Project consisting of commercial and arcades on the first floor with condominium units above. Commission reviewed plans. Discussed making a bottleneck for skiers off of Little Nell. Providing 36 spaces for 36 units. Additional 20 spaces for commercial u~es on first floor. It was pointed out that any changes in the usage of the building would have to come before the Building Inspector and approved by the Commission. Mr. Daly stated he may change the buiding. Joel Hartmeister made a motion that the Commission accept the plans as submitted, but if any changes are made in the building, particularly between The Center and proposed building, that the plans come back to the Commission for additional review. Seconded by Leon Wurl. Mayor Barnard pointed out under uses permitted in the C-l, there provision for a dense collection of second homes for out of town Do not agree with taking prime commercial land for this purpose. not feel commercial on the first floor justifies this. is no owners. Do Daly pointed out he is using 25% for commercial as the Commission desired. Roll call vote - Hartmeister aye; Wurl aye; Tharp aye; Barnard nay; Benninghoff aye. MOtion carried. Stan Anderson - Permit application for a batch plant down near Porto-Mix plant in the North Side Annexation. No structure. Mr. Anderson pointed out this would be a contractor's supply, therefore, would be a permitted use in the City's C-2 District and also under present County zoning. Leon Wurl and Marvin Reynolds stated this was not a permitted use and stated further Mr. Anderson should go before the Board of Adjustment. Leon Wurl made a motion that the Commission inform the Building Inspector that he made a proper decision in rejecting the permit. Seconded by Mayor Barnrd. Mr. Anderson pointed out he had talked to 3 attorneys and they stated it was a permitted use. Roll call vote - Barnard aye; Benninghoff aye; Hartmeister aye; Tharp aye; Wurl aye. SANITATION DISTRICT PLANS Leon Wurl mentioned there should be closer cooperation between special N9 10 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECI(Ha.8.1t l. CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 3/26/68, continued. districts, County and City as to the growth of the area and providing the same services to these areas. Leon Wurl made a motion that the Planning and Zoning approve the plans and write a letter to the Metro Sanitation District indicating this. Seconded by Joel Hartmeister. Roll call vote - Barnard aye; Hartmeister aye; Tharp aye; Wurl aye; Benninghoff aye. C-lA DISTRICT Leon Wurl pointed out he had talked to Jerry Brown and he felt the original proposal was the best and proper area as relates to planning. Wurl stated he felt the Planning and Zoning should review these things as relates to planning and let the Council consider politics and petitions. Leon Wurl made a motion that the Commission submit the original proposal to Council as the Commission's recommendation for the C-lA District. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Benninghoff n~y; Tharp aye; Hartmeister aye; Barnard aye; Wurl aye. Motion carried. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING Leon Wurl made a motion to schedule a public hearing for on zoning of West Aspen Company and Adkins Annexations. Joel Hartmeister. Roll call vote - Tharp aye; Wurl aye; aye; Benninghoff aye; Barnard aye. April 23rd Seconded by Hartmeister STUDY SESSION - Vertical Zoning Commission agreed 16th at 5:00 p.m. be available. to have a study session on vertical zoning on April Secretary to contact Jerry Brown to see if he will CORRESPONDENCE Letter of resignation from Councilman Clymer was read by the Chairman. Letter of resignation and recommendation as to filling this vacancy from Leon Wurl was read by the Chairman. Joel Hartmeister made a motion to recommend to the City Council, as per Leon Wurl's recommendation change section 2-1-1 (c) of the Municipal Code by deleting the portion requiring that the City Administrator or other administrat~ve official appointed by the Mayor shall hold office for the term of the office of the Mayor and add, some person that would be a citizen of Aspen not in an official position but appointed by the Mayor who would hold office for the appointed time. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. Roll call vote - Tharp aye; Wurl aye; Hartmeister aye; Benninghoff aye; Barnard aye. Mayor Barnard made a motion Hartmeister. All in favor, to adjourn at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Joel meeting adj~~rned. ~ ~~~ "~~ Lorraire Graves, Secretary N9 11