Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19640708 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORiIl\O C.F.HOECKELO.B.a.l.CD. JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO JULY 8, 1964 City Council present: Mayor Pabst Councilmen Barnard Kuster McEachern Stapleton Planning Commission members present: Jack Walls, Chairman Ricluird Lai Francis Whitaker Also present: Mrs. Hoffmann - City Clerk John Kerrigan - City Administrator Henry Thurston - Building Inspector Miss Elsie Bruno, CSR, was present to record proceedings for attorneys. Informal discussion prior to the meeting - whether the proposed curb cut ordinance should be included in the Zoning chapter of the Municipal Code. The meeting was then opened by Mayor Pabst who explained that the purpose of the meeting was a hearing on the following ordinances: No. 7 - Rezoning portion of Business District in the West em to Tourist. 8 - Density Control in the Tourist District 9 - Maximum height of buildings in the Tourist District - 25 Ft. 10 - To provide number am size of curb cuts in all districts. II _ To provide a procedure for building review by Planning and Zoning Commission. 12 - To provide an R-15 Residential District. He explained that each is a separate ordinance - that they had been read at the regular Council meeting of July 6, 1964, am that all had been approved with the exception of Ordinance No.8. which was tabled; also that they will not become effective until read and finally adopted at the next regular meeting to be held on July 20, 1964. The Mayor asked for helpful opinions and constructive criticism on these ordinances, and said the hearing will probably be recessed until July 15th, when the Planning Commission will make recommendations to Council. He asked that individuals limit discussion to three minutes - with a 15 limit on each ordinance. The Mayor then read Ordinance No. 10 - Series of 1964 - Amending the Zoning Ordi- nance to provide for the number and size of curb cuts in all districts. (Its in- clusion in the Zoning chapter will await legal advice.) Rob Roy - Architect _ asked reason for "10 feet from property line," and Mr. Walls explained this. Discussed - if entire frontage is pre-empted for entrance to off- street parking, this will limit parking on the street. Luke Anthony felt it would be better to have more flexible wording, as there will be problems to resolve. Pope Rowland expressed dislike for zoning and inquired about his parking - which was explained to him. Lou Wille - lodge owner - asked if there is to be an improvement district formed for the residential district _ Mayor Pabst told him engineering work is being done but he does not think the residential area will be included next year. Guy Drew - lodge owner - asked about irrigation ditches - am was told - not in business district but may be considered if feasible in other areas. 31 .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR'" \0 C. F.HOECKEL O. B.!!. LCD. Page 2 Rob Roy _ How would ordinance work where there are not no curbs? Walls - owner would have to anticipate this. Whitaker - proposed cuts would have to be indi- cated on plot plans. Ordinance No. ll, Series of 1964, _ Amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide pro- cedure for building review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, read by Mayor Pabst. Letter dated July 1, 1964, from Attorney Jack Kane - Mayor Pabst read excerpt opposing building review. Rob Roy _ asked about "neighboring property." Walls explained purpose is harmonious development _ that there is no enforcible power - just recommendation - and he feels Planning Commission should review plans. Councilman McEachern - one purpose is to keep lam use map up to date. Attorney John Wendt _ feels this is a dangerous ordinance - not in the hands of the present Commission, but could be in future. He feels the provision that no building permit may be issued before plans are approved by Commission could result in court action. He feels Aspen is legislating "greater good for greater number" am over- looking the individual, - and restrictions may be put into contract or deed of conveyance. Lai - feels Planning Commission should be consulted. Sandy Luhnow - lodge owner - feels plans should mBet building and zoning require- ments - am if building is started before permit is issued City should do something about it. Hans Gramiger - Realtor _ feels 30 days for Planning Commission review penalizes builder, and if plans meet provisions of the Municipal Code, permit should be issued within 24 hours. Jack Walls referred to back-log of work in Building Inspectors office, and feels Planning Commission review of plans would help to determine if requirements have been met. Lou Wille - also thought 30 days for review is too long. Samy Luhnow _ thought time period set up is a protection. Jack Walls - referred to the two meetings in the month at which plans could be studied by Planning Commission. Francis Whitaker - feels this procedure will save time for the owner. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1964, to provide an R-15 Residential District for the City of Aspen, - no discussion, after reading by the Mayor. Ordinance No.9, Series of 1964, to provide that the maximum height of buildings in the Tourist District shall be 25 feet, - read by Mayor Pabst - who read excerpt from letter from Jack Kane protesting this amendment. Rob Roy - how did Commission arrive at figure of 25 feet. Mayor Pabst referred to County height restriction of 25 feet am problems involved where City boundary line runs through building sites. Rob Roy _ suggested 25 feet to eave line to get away from flat roofs. Roy referred to planning apartments and motels - height restriction am off-street parking present economic factor - fire equipment can reach 35 feet and he feels height should be more flexible. Jack Walls - feels "eave line" has merit with limited pitch. General discussion followed. Sandy Luhnow _ feels 10 feet set-back from alley should be reviewed, as this en- courages junk collection. 32 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORilIlO C.F.HOECKElB.B.81L.CO. Page 3 Pope Rowland - how is 25 feot height to be determined. Planning Commission is working on this am alley set-back. Ordinance No.7, Series of 1964, Ameming Title XI, Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordi- nance am the Zoning Map of the City of Aspen to provide for a change in a portion of the B, Business District to T- Tourist District - read by Mayor Pabst. Jack Walls explained that, at the time of the original zoning in 1956 this area was zoned business, but should have been zoned tourist with a non-conforming use for Waterman's service station am store. As Waterman is no longer there, the principal use is now tourist. The area is not in Fire Zone 1 ani constitutes a hazard. This could be considered spot zoning. Route 82 runs through this area, so this is the first view of the City for visitors. Mayor Pabst read the following letters - opposing re-zoning in the West end: Nancy E ani Gerald Payne - Block 16, Lots C and. D Merritt N. am Olivia VanSickle - All of Blocks 5, 6, am II upon which the Villa has been built. Jack Kane - attorney for the VanSickles. Reference was made to phone call from Kit Dobbins - Block 22, Lots K ani L - he feels present zoning is not detrimental to his property. The following letters - for rezoning were then read by Mayor Pabst: Joseph am Anna L. Hauser - 834 west Main Mary J. Menig _ K. Joan Vogenthaler - Thomas J. Vogenthaler - Clara M. Stutler - Block 18, Lots G. H. and. I. Letters opposing the building of a gas station in the West em were also read. Mayor Pabst said Mrs. Paepcke had verbally informed him she feels this area should not be used for business. Guy Drew said he had talked with Mrs. Paepcke who did not understam that the area is already zoned business - she would not be opposed to a gas station operation similar to the Waterman's. Leslie Gross _ attorney for Villa of Aspen (VanSickle) - The Agate Lodge - Gene T. Frey - D. F. am Juanita Dikkers - Elizabeth Paepcke - Anna Borgeson. Mr. Gross said his clients had acqUired the property after 1956 - being required to pay for business property, ani would be damaged by rezoning. His examination of City records irdicates that this area in the West end has always been zoned business - not by mistake, but intentionally, ani he feels those who own lani there are entitled to rely on the zoning. He said there is no reason to destroy property values ani cited law cases. Mr. Gross said Ordinance No.6, Series of 1956 - Zoning - is invalid due to deficiencies in the procedure in connection with its preparation am adoption. He expressed the opinion that Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1960 is also invalid due to deficiencies in procedure (See Notes for Testimony - on file in City Clerk's office). Attorney Gross silid he has acted seriously on behalf of his clients, and is amazed that the City has obliged the service station backers to fritter away their time. The legality of the Zoning Ordinances is to be referred to the City Attorney. The meeting was adjourned for a short period and. then again called to order by the Mayor. 33 ,">-'-, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FDRill ~I C. F. HOECKEL B. B. 1\ l. CD. Page 4 'Janet Gaylord, representing the Aspen Civic Association, referred to cQrner at Seventh ani Hallam as a hazard, ani feels this will increase if business district is continued, and. she said the approach to Aspen should be attractive. Elli Bealmear feels area is tourist am favors the change in zoning. She said Virginia Chamberlin and. the present owners of the Markle house also favor the change. Rob Roy _ As a planning matter, he agrees to change or restrictive zoning. Discussed with Mr. Gross _ legal aspects of "spot zoning" - am Denver-Buick case; also off-street parking. Mrs. Lloyd Russell asked why area has not been developed as business. Sid Wheeler _ said property value exists as business and will decrease if there is a change in zoning. Ordinance No.8, Series 1964 - To provide for Density Control in the T - Tourist District - Tabled at the July 6th meeting - was read in full by the Mayor. Mr. Pabst then read letter from the Aspen Lodging Association, dated July 6, 1964, opposing this ordinance; also a letter dated July 8, 1964, from the Aspen Chamber of Commerce oPPQsing this ordinance. The Mayor referred to the problems involved in density and asked for suggestions. Rob Roy - feels this is controlled by requirements for off-street parking and height restrictions. Jack Walls quoted from letter from Municipal League re other cities adopting density control ordinances. Luke Anthony _ this is a small city and an attempt should be made to get public opinion on this matter. Ria Beyer - referred to Aspen program of advertising - why advertise if we do not want to attract people. Jim Emerson - questioned legality and feels density is controlled by present code. Jack Walls - referred to meeting with the lodge owners - points brought out are being considered - he feels plan should be for the future. Sid Wheeler - good planning necessary - suggests getting figures from similar resorts - am finding out what entire city wants. Sandy Luhnow - suggests determining 1960 density figures and working from them - he feels City must grow at a healthy rate 01" deteriorate. Councilman McEachern - is not against growth - except in restrictive areas. Florence Corya - feels tourist area may be too large. Leland. Brown - Ski-Vu Lodge _ feels City is trying to control everything at once - suggests using present requirements for two years ani then making study - as there is now not a basis on which to make study. Jack Walls - showed land use map - indicating residences in tourist area. Jim Moore _ Realtor - referred to restrictions and. lack of saleability of property. Lou Wille - asked why lodge owners should provide all the parking. Asked if City is buying property for public parking. 34 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.B.L.CQ. Page 5 Jack Walls - parking to be considered in long range plan. Jim Moore _ feels parking should not fall entirely on lodge owners ani small businesses am referred to the ski area parking problem. John Wendt _ suggested that Council appoint a citizens' committee for constructive proposals and projection of what the citizenry want. Hans Gramiger - that new construction must be economically sound - not possible with present code restrictions - referred to old-timers who may be forced out of A!lpen. Sand.y Luhnow - referred to economic control. Bill Beyer _ Lodge owner - suggested enforcing present code requirements - also referred to rental houses in residential area. Bill Dunaway - referred to need for density control am recommended compromise ordinance to permit good growth. Leslie Gross - referred to Section 139-60 Subsection 1, Revised Statutes - re density, ani does not feel density ordinance would accomplish this. Hans Gramiger - As City Council and Planning Commission represent City they should work together. The hearing was recessed until 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, July 15, 1964, upon motion by Councilman McEachern, secomed by Councilman Kuster and. carried. (ll:15 P.M.) ~man " City Clerk , 35