Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19640701 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELO.O.! L. CO. SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1, 1964 ASPEN, COLORADO Present were: Jack Walls, Chairman, Francis Whitaker, Richard Lai, Harald Pabst, Mayor, and Henry Thurston, Building Inspector. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Walls at 8:15 P.M., who pointed out the Wiener land use map on the wall, and asked Mr. Thurston about the progress he was making on a map showing the West end portion of town that is up for re-zoning. Mr. Walls then read the recommendations made by the Committee made up of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Lai regarding an alternate proposal to re-zoning the West end to the "B" district, but exclud- ing the following uses: wholesale businesses, automobile repair shops, builders supply and lumber yards, laundries, storage warehouses, gasoline service stations, woodworking or metal working shops using noisy machinery. Since this zone is not in the No. 1 Fire District, front and side yard set- backs should be required similar to those in the Tourist zone. Mr. Pabst asked Mr. Walls what :i1npressions he had gathered at the previous night I S meeting with the lodge owners. Mr. Walls stated that he had told them exactly what the situation was and how it arose. He told the lodge owners that this re-zoning had been proposed two years ago and was in the minutes of the City Council meeting. At that time the council members had decided to re-zone and had voted thus, therefore, the Council was morally obligated to act. The City Planning and Zoning Commission had let this slide because of the decision to hire a master planner, which would bring about a re-evaluation of zoning. Mr. Walls mentioned that Mr. Drew had said something about the possibility of a compromise between the City and the property owners in the West end, but this did not come to any fruition. He said that he had a lengthy conversation with Steen Gantzel the following day and had been informed that after he had left, a motion was made by the lodge owners to hire an attorney but, after a vote, this was not passed. It was Mr. Walls feeling, after this meeting, that it would be an excellent idea to try to lIlrk with the various property owners in this section and to get their reaction to ideas before trying to push anything through. Mr. Whitaker said that this was his thinking in suggesting a possible compromise solution, as he did not like to see any large scale re-zoning at this stage of the master plan. He felt the compromise solution might help avoid a motel strip into town. His proposal would eliminate certain businesses which he felt would be inap- propriate to this area and which are now permitted in the business district. He did feel that there would have to be some control regarding setbacks. A discussion followed regarding different types of businesses that would work in well in this are/J., such businesses as the Klip and Kurl, presently located there, and a shop such as the type Terese Davis has. Mr. Pabst asked Mr. Walls if he would present the case for re-zoning at the meeting on July 8th. Mr. Walls agreed and asked Mr. Pabst if he could get the people concerned together before the meeting and talk to them so that they could have a chance to think the matter over before the meeting. He felt the Commission should now concentrate on the zoning ordinance concerning density control which seemed to be a hot issue with the lodge owners. He stated he had made a study regard- ing this, and that he had gone over the situation with Mr. Thurston regard- ing the number of new apartment and dormatories being built this year. There was a sizeable increase in the City so far this year in the building of public lodgeing over that in past years. There are 112 new units this year in comparison to a high figure of 83 for the past four years. He said the lodge owners felt that the Commission seemed to be pushing dormatories and apartments. They also felt that the 750 square feet of space per living area was too restrictive. They also contended that the dorms and apart- ments could be fixed so that they could be divided off and rooms rented individually. Mr. Lai asked if there was any code in regard to the number of people, square footage-wise. Mr. Thurston thought there was, but that 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMID C.F.HOECKELB.B.IIL.CO. -2- perhaps occupancy could be specUied according to the U.B.C. and be .further restricted. Mr. Whitaker said that this is one of the loopholes in regard to the present zoning ordinances as there is no de:rinition in regard to multiple dwelling units, as far as a motel or lodge was concerned. Mr. Walls then referred the members to the letter sent to Mr. Balcomb in con- nection with the definition of a living unit. Mr. Walls thought that if there were loopholes such as this in the ordinances, several were pointed out to him by the lodge owners, perhaps the July 8th meeting could be postponed so that the Commission could work out things. Mr. Pabst stated that the Council would vote on the 6th an the proposed ordinances as they have been written, and then they could recess the meeting on the 8th until they have a second re-reading at the next Council meeting, vote on that, then have a reading of any newly written ordinances. Mr. Walls felt that something like this should be done as these items should be worked out with the parties involved and not just pushed on them, that this was a matter of public relations. The Commission should make public what they are working on so the people have an opportunity to come in and go over the matters. Mr. Whitaker felt the Planning and Zoning Commission should have special public hearings for just this reason. Mr. Walls said that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission go to Bill Dunaway for publication and, therefore, the people are kept abreast of what the Commission is planning, but that perhaps special items regarding ordinances and zoning could be sent out in the form of a press release to bring interested persons attention to these items. Mr. Whitaker stated he thought a public hearing was the answer because then these things, while still in the planning stage, could be gone over with the people~l_..~I..~ to get their reactions and ideas before they were formalized. Then, the matters would be sent on to the City Council for legislation. Mr. Walls again brought up the problem of density and the need to state it definitely so there will be no loopholes. He wondered if the Commission was really being realistic, from the lodge owners point of view, in the proposed density control ordinance. Mr. Pabst asked if the owners were looking at this on a long range basis when there might be 23,000 population in the tourist zone. Mr. Walls said that they were only looking to the immediate future, and only the skiing season. Discussionfollowed as to the state of development of Aspen Mountain, and it was generally agreed that this liaS almost completely developed. other areas such as Snowmass, Buttermilk and Highlands were discussed. Would the people eventually stay at these areas, should developments begin at the base of these mountains, or would they continue to stay in Aspen. Mr. Pabst felt that eventually there would be a continuous development right out to these areas. Mr. Lai asked if anyone knew what the County Planning and Zoning had in mind regarding any future development plans for areas such as these in the County. He thought this matter should be discussed with them at the next joint meeting. Discussion regarding the benefits of having cohesion between all four bodies, Le., City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions and the City and County Boards of Adjustment. Mr. Lai asked if the City Council could have legis- lation along this line. It was pointed out that this could be done, as the members of these bodies are appminted. The density control problem liaS then resumed. Mr. Walls read from the study he had drawn up regarding this matter. According to the existing code, 300 square feet of land is required for a living unit, or 12 units on 2 lots. If the proposed ordinance requiring 750 square feet of land were adopted, this would mean 4 units on the BJIIIle piece of land. If this 750 feet is deemed to be too restrictive, tken perhaps a compromise of 600 square feet might be worked out. This would mean 5 units. The size of the land would have to be taken into consideration also. In cases of whole blocks or half blocks, the set backs could be included in the size of the land, -'d.l'1-g a maximum use of the maximum area, and thus in~reasing the density problem. It was decided to call the Colorado Municipal League as no answer had been received to the first letter sent to them, and ask them 28 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKElB.B.IIl.CO. -3- what the ratio was in other townS. Mr. Walls asked what affect the deletion of this ordinance from the other proposed ordinances would have in regard to any voting by the City Council. Mr. Pabst said that it would have none, as each ordinance is voted on separately. Mr. Walls then read the proposed curb cut ordinance from the letter to Mr. Balcomb. Next item on the agenda was the proposed motel, the Applejack. Mr. Walls submitted two drawings showing proposed parking as supplied- by the architect Mr. Roark. After discussion regarding the proposals, it was decided to contact Mr. Roark suggesting that he have parallel parking on his Scheme A rather than diagonal parking. This would eliminate parking space for three cars. The Commission recommended that Mr. Roark be advised to contact the Board of Adjustment regarding a variance for the lessening of his off-street parking. The height ratio_ was then brought up and Mr. Walls said that a point of reference IlIUSt be established for the measuring of height. He said he wished to investigate the Denver zoning code book regarding their requirements, and then a special provision would have to be made for the hillside sites. Mr. Lai e:xpressed some concern regarding the 25 foot height requirement bring- ing on a rash of nat-roofed buildings. Mr. Walls said that the main reason in reducing the height to 25 feet was to get some means of control by bulk, and the appearance as far as the adjoining property was concerned. Next item on the agenda was the Brown Palace Ice rink. They are putting in a wall and want to build over on City property for a distance of five feet. They are also putting in machinery and dressing rooms, thus eliminating off-street parking on the East side of the building. The problem of the parking space around this public facility was discussed. It was the general feeling that the land adjacent to the rink should be purchased and dedicated for parking. The fact was also mentioned that, although this is in essence a public facility, there is no assurance that it will remain such. Mr. Pabst asked what land in that vicinity was selling for and was told approximately $6,000, per lot. There are three or four lots in between that could be purchased for parking. Mr. Lai moved that the Commission recommend to Council to turn down the request. Mr. Whitaker seconded this request. Mr. Walls thought that a reason should be given for this recommendation, such as that until certain quantities of land are bought and dedicated for parking, this request be denied. Mr. WMttaker said that this request from the Brown Palace Ice Rink was for encroachment on City property and has nothing to do with the parking. He did not feel that the Commission had anything to do with this. Mr. Walls aaid that parking was not the issue the last time the Palace asked for a variance. At that time they got a variance from the Board of Adjustment to build to the North and South property line. Mr. Whitaker said that there had been a motion made and due to be seconded. Mr. Pabst asked if the Commission could outline a letter to be sent with this recommendation to Council1- Mr. Lai was asked to restate the motion and said that the Palace had already been allowed a variance on set backs and over-hangs an:l that they have not provided adequate off-street parking and, while the Commission appreciated this being a public spirited enterprise, after weighing one thing against the other, the Commission has decided against this. Mr. Whitaker seconded this motion and voided the first motion. The later motion was carried. Mr. Walls then directed discussion to Mr. Thurston regarding some of the ordinances now in effect. He said that the wording regarding a 1lIU1tiple family dwelling was not clear, and described a new dormatory being built to prove his point, as far as the definition of a living unit was concerned. Again the question of having so many square feet of living space per person was brought up. Mr. Thurston said he would try to find out if this ratio was stated anywhere. He brought up the mi29int in the zoning code regarding RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F.1l0ECKEL a. B. I> L CO. -4- signs. Mr. Walls said that the Board of Adjustment had clarified this, and it was in their minutes. Mr. Thurston said he felt the zoning code in regard to the sign ordinance should be looked over with a possibility of re-wording and clarification to make the ordinance more specific. A general discussion then ensued regarding a tax basis. Meeting adjourned 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Francis Whitaker Recorded by Marje Houle 30