Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19670919 --, -... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL6.6.&L.CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 19, 1967 Meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Tom Benton - Presiding Mayor Robert Barnard Councilman Clyde Clymer Sam Lum Francis Whitaker Donald Copelin George Heneghan Special meeting called for decision on plans for two buildings - Chateau DuMont and Chateau Blumont for Mr. Wallen which were tabled at the last regular meeting. Donald Copelin - I talked to former Councilman Stapleton and Mr. Wallen with regard to this problem and all agreed that there was a problem with the definition between a motel, hotel, lodge which a lot of these condominiums claim they are or a multiple family dwelling unit and the feeling was that there was quite a bit of ambiguity. We have had this problem before when people have come up here to describe their off street parking. If they want to benefit from the parking, if they want to minimize the amount of parking they want to give their people, they say they are a lodge. They don't care what they are called. Would like the Commission to consider changing the definition of a motel, hotel lodge in Title XI, Page 2 of the mimeograph sheets to read "a building designed for occupancy as a more or less temporary place of abode of individuals who are lodged with or without meals, such building having 6 or more guest rooms, central lounge area, office and whatever else you wanted to or felt was really necessary to describe a lodge." Maybe then the consequent definition of an accommodation unit and dwelling unit which is listed on Page 2 would make more sense from our standpoint in judging whether someone is in the lodge business or in the apartment business. Alsowould like the Commission to consider going on record toward a Resolution encouraging landscaping, ~ Mr. Kern last week impliedllnlMr. Wallen implied today that the reas~was little land- scaping at the Chateau Aspen is because we were 1aGQSBBHton the parking~ requirements and, therefore, they had to take out the landscaping that -~ they intended to beautify the building with. I told Mr. Wallen today that I felt the architect at the time should consider both landscaping and the off street parking and not put the Q~ on the Planning and Zoning Commission to the point that we are against landscaping. I think I speak for everybody that we are very much in favor of landscaping. Chairman Benton - Would like to say that the definition of a dwelling unit and a hotel unit are defined under the Uniform Building Code which this City has adopted. It clearly indicates this as an apartment, as a dwelling unit as defined under the Uniform Building Code. Our definition in Title XI are based on the UBC so that there would not be a conflict. I think that the owners of these units feel they are apartments because they advertise them as apartment units. They advertise them as condominium apartments for rent or sale. There was a case in Pitkin County at the Highlands in which a condominium was built and the builders claimed it was not a condominium but a lodge. This case went to court and I have the opinion of the judge here, the case went against the owners and it was judged a R~HH~HiHmXH3%Xaxi~H~H lodge not a condominium, the two cannot be the same thing. N? 59 -.., -._.......~.-..""-~""_.- ,-~... '-- .... . ,'....., '......,_."._~.~--,-- ,--.... '. , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL 5. 6. & Leo. Special Meeting, P & Z, Sept. 19, 1967, continued. Attorney Kern - Would like to go into one of the purposes of Title XI. The spirit of Title XI was to provide for the off-street parking depending upon the uses of the premises. It is my understanding you have received quite a few figures based on temporary uses of the premises short term rental and things of this nature and that is why you have come up with the figure of 2 parking spaces for accommodation units. Then Title XI was passed. Following the passage of Title XI, and of course you require this you made the rulings and you interpret it. Some structures presented by one is a condominium unit intended for short term and I suppose you were given the idea this would be short term rental and you allowed the 2 for 3 off-street parking believing it was with the spirit of the law. Then you allowed it again when an individual came up and asked for 2 for 3 parking when he had clearly apartments. He never indicated, I was here at the meeting, whether it would be used for long or short term rental because they were apartments. Some were low square footage some were 600 sq.ft. Now Mr. Wallen comes in and aske for the samething that was granted to another case. Saying that we are accommodation units, not trying to play the name game, trying to follow the spirit of Title XI which is in effect providing anough off street parking. I think that we are here to ask that the Commission be consistent with the previous decisions and I talked to Mr. Whitaker and he says thet he now feels that the decisions were wrong. I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I would say you should be cnnsistent with your decisions also to follow the spirit of Title XI. Off street parking requirements for these units should be 2 for 3. You mentioned last week something about the density of the area 600 sq.ft. Was my understanding that in the discussion taken down in the City Council this 600 sq.ft. was a minium square footage but not a definition. I don't see how that could be applicable here. If you have any questione, Mr. Otis the Architect can answer your questions. Chairman Benton - I personally think we made a mistake on those 2 previous cases. One has not been built and will probably not be built and the other one we talked to Mr. Daly and he can provide 1 parking place per unit. Mayor Barnard - Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should allow ourselves to be deflected by what happened in the past. We are talking about 2 buildings right now the question is whether they do or don't meet the requirements. What Tom Daly or Joe Blow did, as far as I am concerned, is not even under consideration here. Chairman Benton - No~el11 under the UBC or any code when 2 definitions apply you take the most restrictive of the two. In this case these units obviously fall under the dwelling unit definition. In my own mind I am convinced they are apartments. B. Clark - Tom Daly is going to meet the 1 for 1 on the off street parking. Is that the main contention with these buildings, with the fact that it is 2 for 3 rather than 1 for 1. Chairman Benton - I believe it is. The parking is the main problem. There is a problem other than the parking problem with the plans. Architect - Mr. Chairman, if we were able to provide 1 for 1 parking would this solve the problem that seems to exists. N? 60 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.f.HOECKEl6.6.&l.CO. Special Meeting, P & Z, Sept. 19, 1967, continued. Chairman Benton - You see the parking requirement right now is 1-1/2 spaces for 1. However, it is before Council right now, we already had a public hearing and some of you people were here, on 1 for 1 parking ratio. It receives its first public hearing before Council on Monday. B. Clark - I think we are all trying to get into the swing of Title XI and what is behind it rather than the legality. The precedent was set by the Commission 2 for 3 yet everybody realizes it should be 1 for 1 not 1-1/2 for 1. So I just wonder if this commission, knowing that it errored on the 2 for 3, if we could provide the 1 for 1 which is what is up before Council now, if we were to do that would this be acceptable at this time as a compromise to these buildings. Mayor Barnard - Didn't you have something else there in regards to the egress and ingress of the parking. Chairman Benton - I felt that one of the things that we have to look at is the hazards and safety. I felt that the parking as shown does not meet the UBC. You cannot restrict a legal exit of stairways determined b~ the occupancy load. That occupancy load determines the width of the stair. That becomes the legal exit. The legal exit requires that width unobstructed to the public way. You do not have that on these plans unless I read them wrong. Architect - You are absolutely right. I did make a mistake on that. I think we can resolve the problem. Chairman Benton - I think the major problem is the number of parking places per unit. Architect - I designed these units to be used for temporary dwellings for people vacationing primarily to go skiing and the reason they are not one bedroom is because the market demands it. People come out and ski as a family sport. You get a lot of people using one ?partment that couldn't very easily use one bedroom apartment. On that basis it is clearly intended to be used the same way a lodge would be used only accommodate larger parties. And if we were able to provide one for one parking I think we would be in the spirit of Title XI and in consistency with your previous decisions. I do have a way in which we can provide 1 for 1 parking by eliminating one ?partment down on the lower level and placing our parking underneath. I think this is in the spirit of the code, it is in conformity with the intention and use of the building and it is certainly consistent with your previous decisions. I do have a plan which we can show 1 for 1 and it works out very adequate. Francis Whitaker - Title XI as it is printed we have only 2 possibilities in accommodation units of various types. One is 2 for 3 and the other is 1-1/2 for 1. I do not see how we can ~ it on the basis of something the Council may make final in 3 weeks. I think it would be better if we work over these plans and meet the objections and by the time you come in we hope that this conflict over parking and definitions will be resolved. Attorney Kern - One of the greatest difficulties is a question of timing. I think the owners brogght this up at this time because they thought the N? 61 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F.HOECKH 6.6.& LCD. Special Meeting, Planning & Zoning, Sept. 19, 1967, continued. is a motel, hotel unit/more than one bedroom and one bath is an apartment unit. That is a very simple definition and one that the lodge owners, realtors and contractors like. Marvin Reynolds - That is not the way the Resolution is written. It does not define the difference between an apartment and a hotel, motel unit. It is strictly in relationship to the parking. Chairman Benton - This is going before Council and they will read this Monday. It is obvious these are apartment units, and should require 1 for 1 parking and I personally do not think it is unreasonable at all. I am in sympathy with 1 for 1, nothing less, and I am not in sympathy with okaying the plans on a 2 for 3 basis. One thing that we have done before is approve plans subject to the correction and we have done this because it can not be stamped by the Building Inspector until such correction that we have advocated is done. I will throw this out to the Commission. Mr. Coates - I am part owner in this. I plan to move my family here if these plans are approved. Of course, I have considerable money invested here. Everything that I have heard here to day seems like we are talking about getting into the spirit of the thing. I think everyone is in the spirit of the thing and no one will argue that 1 for 1 parking dosen't satisfy the spirit and give ample parking. After we looked into this, we realized we could redraw the plans and eliminate one apartment in order to get into this thing. We are up against a time element and we are up against a financial point, if we don't get this thing started. It seems like we can be consistent with ourselves and at the same time help Aspen and get this project done and not hurt anyone beyond what you will do next week or next month by approving these plans as they have been amended. We are willing to do that and go to the expense. We want to get the project done and see it done right. Mayor Barnard - Mr. Chairman, r don't think the Commission has the authority to bend the existing code to its own will. The Council is the one who has the authority to change this code and until it does you are bound to go by it. It was not more than 2 weeks ago when someone came to the Board of Adjustment with a request to anticipate how the zoning will be changed from C-l to C-lA and if I recall correctly you gentlemen declined to do so on the same basis. I see no difference in this situation. Francis Whitaker - Mr. Chairman if everything goes to schedule we could act officially on the 1 for 1 parking basis on the 10th of October. You hold a hearing on the 25th and your second reading would be 2 weeks from then. We could act on it by the 10th of October. I think you should revise your plans to fit the new requirements and correct the situation you have as far as exits go and get those plans back into the Commission right away, and we could act on them, if all goes according to schedule, on October 10th. Marvin Reynolds - I would like to point out to Mr. Whitaker and the Commission that the Commission has nothing to do in considering the exits according to the UBC. Chairman Benton I think we have the right to review the plans based on certain hazards. N? 63 "._---~-<-- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!I C. F. HOECKEl B. 6. a Leo. Special Meeting, P & Z, Sept. 19, 1967, continued. Commission, right or wrong, had made their decision which would allow 2 for 3 basis. They are willing to have the plans of 1 for 1 approved on that basis, even though 2 for 3 basis is appropriate.for this type of accommodations. Francis Whitaker - The only prov~s~ons are one space per dwelling for a one family dwelling, one space per dwelling for a two family dwelling. There is no provision for a 1 for 1 of any multiple family dwelling. B. Clark - Legally that is exactly right. But consistent with your prior decisions did you not approve it on a 2 for 3 basis. We will make this a part of the plans showing 1 for 1 which will be part of the plans. We will provide 1 for 1 even though 2 for 3 is required. Francis Whitaker - Speaking for myself, we were advised in the first case by the Attorney that we had made a mistake. In the second case, I voted against continuing that policy, interpreting the ordinance that way. I feel the same way now. If we are going to be consistent and go on making the same mistake again that is one form of consistency that I am not in favor of. Chairman Benton - I am personally opposed to continuing a mistake and giving approval to 2 for 3 parking on these plans. I am in sympathy with the 1 for 1 parking. I am not in agreement with these plans for 2 for 3 and then giving a supplement. B. Clark - Would be replacing 2 for 3 with this plan for 1 for 1. Architect - The planr is all drawn. It is sketched out and would like to show it to you. I think everybody concerned, including the Commission, is interested in seeing Aspen grow in the right direction. It is known that the buildings that we are proposing to put up are to be used for tourist accommodations. V. Kappeli - My they have to go curb and across street. guests next door to the Chateau Aspen complain because into the road to go into town. Cars are parked at the the sidewalk. The only way to go into town is in the Mayor Barnard that building. B. Clark, how come you did not put in a sidewalk around B. Clark - It was not required because there is an ordinance where the City IDmes in and Leon Wurl said next spring the City is going to put in the sidewalk and I said fine. Mayor Barnard - He did not say that. What you said, you did not have to. B. Clark - We couldn't because at the time it was in the middle of January. Chairman Benton - Would like to clarify one thing. We had a public hearing on this parking ordinance that is going to be read by City Council at next Mondays meeting. At the Planning and Zoning public hearing all the testimony of the public was taken down and everyone agreed that to determine the difference between a hotel, motel lodge unit and apartment unit and this is what was proposed and what is to be adopted. One bedroom and one bath N? 62 - .. , '. " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR""~ C. F. HOECKEl B. a. a Leo. Special Meeting, P & Z, Sept. 19, 1967, continued. Architect - Is there any possibility to eliminate this delay for me to submit these plans to you now. Francis Whitaker - We cannot act on them on that basis until the 10th of October at the earliest. We have no authority to bend the law. You can go to the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Kern = My feeling is that the law as it is written down is 2 for 3 and again precedent whether you want to cast them out is up to you. Chairman Benton - Mr. Kern we have a court case and attornies opinion. Attorney Kern - I know the op~n~on put down by Judge Fulgum and I don't agree with all his particular findings in that case. Janet.'Gaylord discussed that with me not in relation to this and I even know that Janet Gaylord provided you with her opinion with regards to the parking of the 2 for 3 on the South Point Condominium. Chairman Benton - We found we were wrong. Attorney Kern - Not sure she found you were wrong, she said you had to dec ide tha t . Chairman Benton - (Read the definition of a dwelling unit from Title XI) Now you can discount the 600 sq.ft. and that definition fits these units. Even though another definition may fit. B. Clark - You admitted that the 600 sq.ft. is not a definition merely a minimum and that is why, I talk~a'to Jerry Brown and he talked to you when you people agreed or I thought you agreed, to lower it from 600 to 450. Chairman Benton - I am not bringing up the 600 sq.ft. Attorney Kern - What do you mean by living independently. Chairman Benton - One family living independently from another family. Like in the UBC, if you look up dwelling and look up hotel you will see that there are 2 different definitons. A hotel cannot be a dwelling unit. Hotel unit is for sleeping, dwelling unit is for living including kitchen facilities. Attorney Kern - Under your definition in this code a hotel motel may have kitchens. Chairman Benton - As I said when 2 definitions fit, you always take the more restrictive. Architect - As i read Title XI i get the feeling that we are trying to determine the difference between temporary accommodations and dwelling places. It seems to fit that a lodge, people are there only temporarily whether 6 or 2. Chairman Benton - We have no way of determining whether a condominium will be short term or long term residence. If you sell one you do not tell the people whether they can live in it or not. If someone wants to rent it long term, you cannot tell them how long. It seems to me we cannot presume to tell whether an apartment &1 be lons; or short term. N. 64 - . ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"'!I C.F.HOECKElB.B.a.l.CO. Special Meeting, P & Z. Sept. 19, 1967, continued. Architect - There is no clear cut definition for a dwelling unit or a clear cut definition for a lodge unit or motel as the existing Title XI stands today. That is the reason we are here today is to talk about this 2 for 3 on the parking because there is no clear cut definition and in that regard we are asking for approval of our plans with the intent of redrawn plans we have here today with 1 to 1 parking even though we are asking for approval with out that but the plans approved which show this parking as such. We do have a revised set of plans that we would like you to consider here at this meeting. B. Clark - In the past this has been done and the Commission has issued a building permit subject to the redrawn plans and subject to the Building Inspector on a certain basis. Francis Whitaker - Do not recall the Commission even making a decision or granted people plans conditional on a change in the ordinance. B. Clark - Not on condition of the ordinance but on a change of something that was drawn in the plans that they wanted to make a recommendation to the plans as drawn and granting a permit on the basis that this would be redrawn into the plans and approved by the Building Inspector. Francis Whitaker - What you are asking for is approval conditional on submitted other plans conditional again on a change in the ordinance. Architect - I am asking that the plans be approved on the 2 for 3 parking but we will draw in that we are going to have 1 for 1 parking and the plans would he approved on this many parking spaces even though the section of the code is being 2 for 3. But the plans as approved will have the 1 for 1 parking on it and we will have to produce the 1 for 1 parking. Under the definitions as the Title XI is written today, there is no absolute clear cut definition between the two. I am asking for approval on the basis of 2 for 3 with parking under the present ordinance today as the approval of such plans is made recently and follow the precedent that has been set. We will in effect not provide 2 for 3 parking but will provide 1 for 1 parking on these plans and will submit them tomorrow morning to the Building Inspector to vote on that basis. We have the 1 for 1 drawing right here so they can be updated in 1-1/2 hours. But at the same time you approved Chateau Blanc, they were approved on the same basis. We have more than 1 for 1 parking at Chateau Blanc but at that time you approved them on condition of redrawning something into the plans at that time. The next day plans were redrawn submitted to the Building Inspector and building started. Donald Copelin - I make a motion that the Commission act on these plans as a multiple dwelling unit on the basis of the present ordinance and the parking of 1-1/2 for 1 and the plans be rejected. Seconded by Mayor Barnard. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Barnard made a motion to adjourn at 5:55 p.m., seconded by Sam Lum. All in favor, meeting adjourned. (_..~~~ ~ Lorraine Graves, Secretary N? 65