Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19670118 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.O.llL.CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning January 18, 1967 TITLE XI The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Tom Benton at 8:05 p.m. with the following members present: Mr. Francis Whitaker Mayor Robert Barnard Councilman William McEachern Mr. Sam Lum Also present Jerry Brown, Planner who submitted the new Ordinance on Title XI and the new Zoning District Map. Chairman Benton stated the Ordinance would be read in its entirety, anyone having questions please speak up, will be answered either simply at that time or after the Ordinance has been read. Entire Ordinance on Title XI was read by the Commission members. Question - Is this basically the same as the copies we have gotten from the City Clerk. Answer - Yes, we will note the changes as we go along. Comment - By Jerry Brown. This new zoning district map has only 5 districts shown, although we have a total of 12 in the Ordinance some of these will predicate on the possibilities of annexation, so we are looking ahead and considering at least at this stage the R-15 which is the land that will be annexed down in the Northwest corner of town and the County area, of course, to the South of town. So for these purposes don't be confused, we have 12 districts on the Ordinance and 6 on the map. We are just trying to get one jump on this so that when an annexation comes up perhaps the zoning problems can be solved instead of having to start on them. Comment - A change was made on Residential R-40 minimum lot width in unsubdivided land from ISO' to 200', subdivided land from 100' to ISO'. Question - Under R-40 subject to approval shouldn't this be subject to approval of the Board of Adjustment. Answer - Yes, anything subject to approval on here is generally listed under uses conditional. Question - Shouldn't this be stated since it is stated below. Answer - Wanted to hold this open so we wouldn't have to split anything that might have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Question - What is the definition of a patio house. Answer - Patio House is a recognized term which means a generally square or rectangular house which includes its yard within the principal walls of the building. Question - Could a patio house be 2 stories. - 1 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM II C.F.HOECKELB.B.8L.Co. Public Hearing, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Answer - Successfully no, because when you go 2 stories you block out the light that you would normally get. For example courts in a vilage or apartments are very nice but the fact that they are 2 stories tends to cut down some of the attractiveness of them. This would be a function of the size of the patio house. Question - Patio houses under maximum height of buildings, shouldn't that be more than 12'. Answer - That was the reason for keeping it to one story. Question - You would not consider a town house. Answer - A town house is getting to what I call here a row house which allows for fire walls dividing, separate ownership of land underneath for 2 stories. Question - If they were set backwards and forwards in a cluster arrange- ment, then you could conceivably have individual patios that are adjoin- ing which would be considered a common element for all. Then you could conceivably have a patio house within our zoning regulations. Answer - If I were doing this, I would build this as a row house which would have its advantages. Comment - Under AR-l Under Patio and Row Houses made a change from sufficient area to 25,000 sq.ft. When you go this architectural development you have to have enough room to work with to make it urban design. Rather than making an open question there, we have decided since the average half block in the City has 27,099 sq.ft. that with a figure of 25,000 you can vision doing urban design on a half block size parcel, whereas trying to do it on a 12,000 sq.ft. or 18,000 sq.ft. lot is pretty difficult. Question - Down in Mexico and I assume other Latin American countries almost uniformly you will have 2 story buildings with the patio in the Center. Just wonder if a person wanted to build something like that is there anything restricting a person from building a 2 story building going up to 25' with a patio inside. Answer - Would like to emphasize that the patio house concept gives you no external lawn except this chunk of open space inside your house. Latin American Countries where shade is pretty welcome. We are in a cold country where snow piles up and you want the sun to get down there, that is the thing. Question - For any type of row house you would have to have 25,000 sq.ft. Answer - That is correct, you would have to have enough to do some sort of design on it. That would not carryover to lodges, motels, hotels, etc. This 25,000 sq.ft. does not affect multiple family dwellings, only to specific types of patio or row houses. Question - Would you consider a town house a row house situation. Answer - I would not. First of all a condominium is a form of ownership. The type of building would be a multiple family dwelling. Under a con- dominium the lot is held in one ownership. A row house you can s~ll - 2 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z Jan. 18, 1967, continued. off the individual lot with the house above it. Question - Could you define the shop craft industry and why it would be necessary to take that to the Board of Adjustment every time. Answer - Is defined under definitions. You might be making one of a kind airplanes, small motors which might be objectionable use in an area, your opening the door to a wide range of things that may need a look at. The zoning district map was explained by Jerry Brown. Question - Will this map be duplicated. Answer - Following this meeting plan to have 2 things done. The ;map will be reduced in size with just the center portion with the City picked out. Will reduce it by 50% to 15" x 20" size to 100 copies for distribution. Question - For your 10% would this allow you to have parking with an overhang on the building. Answer - Yes, it is visioned as either trash or unloading area but you could build over it. That is the reason for the 10' vertical. Question - These cut out signs that are not to exceed a certain area, how large can total area be of such sign. Answer - It is spelled out later in the Ordinance, certain allowances for cut out letters. Comment - Made a change in the for0sale or rental sign in that we originally had either one could be 20' square in area. Question was raised on that as to whether we needed 4' x 5' sign to advertise a place for rent or sale. Came up with 6 sq.ft. for sale sign and 3 sq.ft. for rental sign. Question - What is the reason for putting a maximum on lot size. Answer - It is to avoid making one 10 acre lot and 27 4,000 sq.ft. lots. You can have a lot larger but you cannot credit it towards the density. This happened in California in a planned community they take one large meadow and keep it in single ownership and then really put in some substandard lots around it. They say they all average 15,000 sq.ft. where they do not really average the 15,000 sq.ft. Question - Can you tell me how the height provisions would apply to buildings such as the Aspen Alps, would they still be able to go as high as they presently are. What is the practical difference here on buildings against the slope. Answer - Actually the County PlanningcCommission was more involved with height changes there and there were several arguments advanced around town as to whether they conformed or not. I could not tell you how it would apply to present buildings. The key is if those buildings were requested now, would probably have to go to a variance situation. The Commission worked on this for one year and finally came up with the solution we could not possibly draw up an ordinance that would fit all conditions so this clause for a variance was put in. - 3 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I! C.F.HOECKELlI.B.& l. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Question - Since so much of the ground on the hillside is undeveloped, I wonder what is any particular objection to going higher say than 37~' against the mountain. Answer - 1. - I think you would have to consider access to the building where the fire equipment in town could reasonabl~ get at a taller building. 2. - Consider under variance of adjacent property owners hehind it. But I think there is little effort to hold down the height of buildings just to hold them down in hillside situations. It is a matter of protecting surrounding property owners and providing protection for fire safety and that sort of thing. Comment - There wa s a change made under dwelling, multiple family from one parking space per unit to 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. Question - On off street parking, what would happen if the City built a sizable off street parking facility which might serve businesses or uses which were not in that zone. Answer - We talked about parking districts. In the event of a parking district, I think 'we would set up a distance, say 350' radius. We would make the distance from the parking facility similar to the distance they could be parking away from their principal use. Question - Say you purchased lots part of which were business and part of which is tourist, could you build on the business lot and park on the tourist lot. Answer - Parking could be in an adjacent district if it were in a similar intensive use district. Question - Since along the North side of Main Street is all tourist there will probably in time, be requests for parking on the residential area just across the alley. If such parking were permitted, there it would mean that people passing down Main Street would not see as many cars and parking lots for the lodges. Answer - Would you believe the Commission has received numerous requests about one particular property with numerous comments from people living across the street looking into it. It is a touchy situation. Question - With the set backs along the highway, you are going to have all the parking right out in the front. Answer - It is presently allowed yes. Question - What is an all weather surface. Answer - Any surface that you can plow. Question - What is an increment of expansion. - 4 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Answer - That is the additional amount you would build. Say you added 1000 sq.ft., that would be the increment of expansion to the existing building. You would have to provide parking for the expansion of 1000 sq.ft. Comment - Under building review this would include C-l, C-2, AR-l, AR-2, business and tourist. Under methods of procedure should require plans in duplicate. Question - Under amendments why do you require 80% signers of a petition for a change, why not 66% or 50%. Answer - The State Legislature mentions that figure on protests, so I followed their figure of 80%. Question - Might create a problem here in Aspen, since you might have some absent ownership. Answer - The absent ownership would be the only thing I could think of in support of your argument. We are trying to make sure that when land is rezoned, the people watn the rezoning. Would be protection for the person initiating the change to present a unified front to the Commission. I would really think about it before I would change it. The Commission could end up recommending a rezoning for people who don't really want it. Question - Isn't that to prevent an applicant from including someone elses land in a request for rezoning without their knowledge. Answer - Definately Question In a 3 property owner area, if you can't get one guy that is very often the case in Aspen, you are killed to begin with. Question - Amendments may be initiated by the City Councilor the City Planning and Zoning Commission or real property owners. Now are we going to have the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council going out and asking for any kind of zoning they want in any particular area. Answer - I think it is here to allow what we are doing now. We could hardly expect a group of property owners in the City to request this type of changes. You see an amendment can be to the map as well as the text, so I think we have to allow the Planning and Zoning as well as the City Council room to say we have a parking problem we have to change the parking without them having to wait for a property owner. They still have to hold a public hearing on it, of course, and all the advertising. Reading of the entire Ordinance was completed. Comment - In an Ordinance you usually have a safety clause which allows anyone portion to be declared invalid and saves the remainder of the Ordinance. That is a legal thing on adoption by the City Council. Took a 5 minute break. - 5 - . .~"._,,_._ _,<_~.~_,_._.__._.,_____~m_.~~,"'."""_ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Jerry Brown - One comment I would like to make first of all the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission has spent many hours hashing over set backs, parking etc, I think they deserve your appreciation. This last R-Recreation District was only added here as a tenative thing. The intention was where ever we have sufficient amounts of park land should it be a zoned district, for the protection of surrounding property owners. A riding clud or recreation club could be injurious to the surrounding property owners. The only real reason I see for this is to give adjacent property owners a chance to be heard. Do not feel we have to make a decision on this tonight, but whether we want an open space district or whether we are just going to allow our parks to be included in our other districts throughout the Ordinance. Question - Are you going to incorporate mobile homes in the Ordinance at this time. Answer - As I understand it the City has a s~parate mobile home regulation, but it needs some work done on it. Question - On a patio house the maximum height is 12', but you can go behind and build an accessory building 21' high. I don't think we ought to have this. Answer - Good point, will have to check this out. Question - The commercial property requirements are too strict. Two spaces per 1000 sq.ft. for an intensive use and 1 space for less intensive use. Answer - We obtained the latest copy of Traffic and Parking Study by Wilbur Smith, nationally recognized. In there they have surveys made in central cities of particular uses and how many cars they attracted, sidewalk surveys, where people park, where they were going, that sort of thing. Since we did not want each use providing all its own parking based on multiple trips downtown, we took this Wilbur Smith definate tabulation of parking per square foot and cut it in half. This is probably more liberal than almost any other restrictive downtown section you would see. Question - How did you arrive at the figure of 300 sq.ft. for hotels, motels and lodges. Answer - We compromised. I did some inventory work here on the planning, we surveyed some of the lodges which seemed to be pretty well developed and seemed to be built in a contempory fashion. We came up with some- thing like 1200 sq.ft. of lot per dwelling unit. Many of these could have accomodated additional building. We took the tract of maintaining the quality of Aspen, so I started out much higher on this and finally came down to 300 sq.ft. That allows 4 units per 3000 sq.ft. of lot or 8 units for 6000 sq.ft. of lot which is the minimum of lot you can build on. That figure is also the recommendation of the realtors and the citizens group. - 6 - ._--~._--.-"~~~,,~"...........-.,_.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B.&L.CD. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Question - In this case, you still have the off street parking to contend with. Answer _ Anyone looking downtown in the peak season can see parking has been the problem, we certainly want to help the situation. Question - What is the clarification of a unit and what comprises a unit of 300 sq.ft. Answer - We determined that a unit was a separately rentable unit in a lodge or motel. You can take a series of rooms and arrange the doors actually to make it 2 units. Question - This 300 sq. ft. does this apply to the sleeping area, bathroom area or what. Answer - Would be all the living area exaluding garages, carports etc. Question - If a hotel or motel owner wanted to provide individual units for single or double occupancy, how could they do it under this ordinance, if they felt that 300 sq.ft. was a large size. Provide accomodations at a certain price range, lot size, cost of construction, less interior square feet, lets say for single occupancy. Would this ordinance terminate this type of construction in the tourist zone. Answer - Yes, it would. Question - If I put in a double bed with a bathroom, I would have to make this one unit. Do you think under the Master Plan this is a feasible idea. Shouldn't there b~ more consideration for hotels and motels to provide different types of units. Answer - We wouJd be getting close to a dormitory lodging house in that situation. I think there is something in the Uniform Building Code relative to this minimum square feet per area for a unit in this class of occupancy. Question - If you put 2 people in a room in Aspen, I believe you have to have 90 square feet. The bathroom is basically 5 x 7. We are talking about 120 to 150 square feet, this would be a minimum unit. You are now talking about another 150 sq.ft. Answer - Good point, we will take this into consideration. Question - On non-conforming use, if you have a structure that you know you cannot remodel or do anything else with it and there is an existing structure of $50,000 on one side and an existing building on the other side worth $30,000 you end up in the middle with a lot 45' x 100'. So you have a lot and 1/2 instead of the 2 lots required to build something on. Is it presently or will it be permitted to build a duplex on this site. Answer - The way the Ordinance is written, if it were 5000 sq.ft. you CQuld, below that no. A change was made under small lots. One of the reasonE for the 5000 sq.ft. was because we did annex previously one of the sub- divisions that has 25' lots instead of 30'. To make provision so you would not require a person to have 3 lots. - 7 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F,HOECKElB.B.il<L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Question - Clarification on the off street parking, prior in all zoned districts 2 spaces per 3 units no matter whether it is commercial or tourist. Answer - We are talking accomodations use. Youare taking the parking strictly by use instead of by districts. Question - Will a non-conforming building as far as parking is concerned, be allowed to continue if the new building conforms to the parking. Answer _ When there is a new building that conforms that in no way affects the old building, it would affect only expansion of the old building. This will be re worded for clarification. Question - Curb cuts - Is there anything in the ordinance that on side streets or when you are trying to get off street parking instead ofmaking an actual curb, this year when the streets were paved the cars would drive directly into the parking space and back off into the City right of way. Is this something that should be followed as being feasible so that there is opportunity to put in a curb say 1/2 block and allow cars to drive directly into the lot. Comment - On the paving they did this summer they went along and knocked on doors and asked where they wanted their curb cut. The curbs they are putting on side streets you can just drive right over them anyway. Comment - This is one way to provide off street parking a hardship or detracting from the surrounding property. room for parking. without making Would leave more Answer - Do not like to see perpendicular parking with unlimited curb cut for 4 reasons: 1. - unsafe, 2. - difficult to keep the walk way clear. 3. - destroys curb parking, 4. - no room fo plant trees. Question - In this town lots are small, businesses are going on 4 and 5 lots, there maybe places on side streets where there are never going to be sidewalks. One way to get your off street parking and still preserve open ground is this type of parking. Answer - We will note that. Question - You have to set aside ground for set back, he has to pay taxes on the ground, why can't he use it for something else that the law tells him he can do. I would like to point out R-6 rear set hacks, you are going to have all the residenses having the same set back. A man might want all front lawn. Areyou going to tell him no, he has to start maybe 15' from the front and stop 15' from the back. Why should they all be the same. Answer - There is nothing that prevents you from setting your house back at different points just as long as you don't set it up any closer than IS' . - 8 - ---.-....._...,-",. . ,......--.....-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM I! C.F.HOECKELD.B.I!rL,CD. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Question _ Under curb cuts the C-l and C-2 single lots the curb cut shall be centered between the property guidelines. That does not make sense. Answer - We were just questioning that. First of all we question putting curb cuts in at all. About 10 years ago the set back in the alley was only 2' and the reason for going 15' is so we do not have these narrow dark alleys that block the guy next doors view. Question _ Where do sidewalks go on the public rightof way or on the property owners set back. Answer - On the public right of way. Question - We still have 15' set back from the street. If you maintain enough set back to accomodate your off street parking, then this would not interfere with your sidewalk. It seems like a lodge owner should have a choice that if it is on a main street of being able to pull directly off the street because as soon as he has only 2 curb cuts he gets into a parking situation where he has to increase his parking area by 1/3 in order to maneuver into parking spaces. Answer - The idea is that we have alleys for access to and for services to the property abutting them. This is out of phase with what we are trying to do here now. Comment - With pull off parking, you lose public owned parking and give it to the lodge owners. Comment - Let the lodge owners have the option of this parking and provide additional spaces for the public parking which would be eliminted. Answer - One thing we did, is lower the parking requirements for lodges. Question - How do you provide that the Ski Corporation provide extra parking as the ski business grows. Question Height of trees are not considered as to view. Question - The State Highway will be 4 lanes everybody loses their 200' set back, what happens then in planning for that with utility lines. Question _ Say on annexation, how is the Cities Ordinance tied in with the County. Answer _ The County Planning Commission is activily going through the same exercise as the City Planning and Zoning. Answer - On the 200' set back, this was put in so that after the highway is widened it will not take any buildings. Question - How would you handle the ski cprporation part. Answer - That is a good point. Question _ What classification will the South Side Annexation be in when it is annexed. - 9 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOrCKrLB.a.&L.CO. Public Hearing, P & Z, Jan. 18, 1967, continued. Answer - That will probably be AR-l general tourist district. Question - Will there be a void in zoning when that is annexed. Answer _ There is a certain time there when the land will stay the same zoning as when it was annexed. Question _ Service stations are going to come up and may not want to go down by the industrial area. Have you all decided where they should go. If you allow stations only in the marginal areas you will get crummy stations. Answer - We are hoping this will not be a marginal area. Question - Are you going to penalize someone for tearing down an old building and require them to follow the new ordinance. Answer - First of all we all know there has to be a solution to the parking problem. Second there is the Board of Adjustment. The idea is to get the cars out of the business district so you get the stations out of the center of town. Question - How ill this affect present permits. Answer - Those will not change till the ordinance is in effect. There might be advantages to waiting. Question - Will be taking in Snowbunny with 15,000 sq.ft. lots, your curb cuts for the residential limits cuts to one per dwelling which eliminates circular drives, also eliminates 2 separate driveways for duplexes. Answer - Curb cuts should be reviewed by the City Building Inspector and City Engineer. There being no further comments the meeting was called adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ~ .AI-.~~ ~"'f'.f'. Lorraine Graves, Secretary