Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19600322 .-- ---- ~ - Q ,.... ,,. I ...... MINUTES OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 22. 1960 A special meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was held at noon on Tuesday, March 22, 1960, in the Blue Lounge of the Hotel JerOllle. Members present werel Herbert Bayer, John Doremus, Fred Glidden and William James. Also present warel Teno Roncallio, Fritz Benedict and William Clark. The purpose of this special meeting was to discuss the plens of Mr. Roncall1o's hotel on Main street at the request of the City Council. Mr. Roncall1o showed the plans of the proposed hotel to the group. A Lengthy disCU8sion of the plans followed. Doremus opened the meeting by stating that because the application for a building permit was not acceptable since the plnns did not conform to either the size of the lot or the set-back regulations, among others, the City Council was in no way obligated to gi~e any answer whatsoever to Mr. Roncallio at this time. Herbert Beyer said it would establish a precedent for the City Council to give their permission. Bayer suggested a restudy of the present plans be made, pointing out that there were obviouS considerations that would warrant this study. He thought that a different design approach might result in a lower building. Roncallio stated that at this time he was simply attempting to get a yes or nofran the City Council regarding height and was not prepared for or desirous of canpranising on his plans. Roncall1o argued further that because of the price he had to pay for the land, he must have fifty units or more. An elevator would be required in a three story building but would not be practical unless a fourth story were included. Bayer brought out a north-south sectional plot plan showing how a 38' high building would block the view from adjacent buildings. This indicated clearly that Mr. Roncallio's building would substantially depreciate the value of the property to the north. The meeting was adjourned at 1130 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Herbert Beyer, Secretary - - -- -- - ... ... " " ,I "'"' March 22, , - 1960 Planning Board, City of Aspen City Council, City of Aspen Gentlemen: After giving considerable thought to the 25' building height problem in the City of Aspen, I have come to the conclusion that a somewhat higher limit should be adopted by the City. The reasons for my reaching this conclusion were partly expressed by Mr. Stewart at the Council meeting last night; in addition I would like to draw the Planning Board and Council's attention to the following facts. 1. Aspen is growing fast, and needs larger facilities to handle the growth in its guest population. There is a need for a large, complete 100 unit hotel - perhaps with convention facilities. Due to land shortages such a facility would necessarily have to be a multiple story structure. The same is true of lodges of 35 or more units of which Aspen has need. 2. The enforcement of a low building height - due to the shortage of desirable building sites - necessarily continues smaller lodges, COllUllonly known as the "papa-Mama" type. These type lodges have been and are successful, but our competition for ski guests is no longer New England, and a few small resorts in the United States. We are competing with St. Moritz, Davos, Kitzbuhl, and others of like type in Europe, with large luxurious type hotels and restaurants, and it is imperative to change our thoughts on building structures, in order for us to have finer accOllUllodations. 3. While some properties may have their view restricted by higher buildings, this is necessary under the circumstances. The property owner who objected last night to a higher limit affords six tenants a view of the mountain. The contemplated structure affords many times that number of tenants a similar view. The building of higher units affords more people a better view of Aspen. I would suggest that a building permit be granted in this instance, and that further hearings be held to discuss the problem at greater length. Sincerely, ~Q\)O~ U.,\.)~ wh~~ v. N. Q~nes WVNJ:MS CC: Mayor and Council Members. Board of Adj. Building Inspecotr - . ~.. I o o -1- c') .gA~ J . ( ~o 11",t n. l Iiv' (1 l y t~ ' J ~I ..~.oP QJ~ clVf We mombers of the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen feel that we must strongly protest the decision made by the City Council on March 22, 1960 to Hr. Teno Roncallio regarding a request to obtain a permit to build a hotel on Main Street 3~' high. We protest on the following grounds: 1) According to our knowledge of the law - no decision was required and because of the obvious implications - no answer shculd have been given. Furthermore, the Planning & Zoning Commission felt he would have been agreeable to a comprcmise solution in collaboration with the Commission. Being a politician, he worked towards the easy way out and got it. 2) When we were asked to serve on the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, we considered the new Council and Mayor and their views on Zoning in particular. I quote from a political ad from the ASPEN TDlES dated October 29, 1959: "I promise if elected Heyor, and with the help of the City Council, I shall do ~ best to give the people of Aspen the following: (Item 5 of 9 items) "Enforced zoning laws and a zoning commission that will meet regularly to discuss changes and amendments" by M. Garrish. The implication being that the Heyor felt that our present zoning ordinance could be improved and strengthened. We feel that the decision made on Varch 22 does not back this up. 3) There are implications, some obvious, some not so obvious, that we feel were overlooked. This is not the time to go into these implications, some of which we, the Planning & Zoning Commission, haven't c o c 0 -2- even had time to study; except for perhaps one. The implication that possibly the City of Aspen does not want progressing Zoning. That the City of Aspen feels such limitations as a height restriction would be harmful to the growth of the City. That they consider the tax dollar in a case of this kind is infinitely more important than the principals of Zoning. 4) We protest on the basis that there are forces working against us which make the difficult task of Planning & Zoning even more difficult. One of which is the case of Councilmen and/or the Mayor being members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. These members have a double set of standards to consider for evary decision made. We, appointed laymen, at first thought it would be a distinct advantage in having this liaison between the two groups but in the first instance, we were proven wrong, and after investigation, we have been shown that this will work against good Planning & Zoning in the futUre. However, this is regulated by State Statute and cannot be changed. Secondly, we have the impression that the City Attorney does not believe in progressive zcning. If the City intends tc adhere to modern principals of Planning & Zoning, we must have a City Attorney who backs us up. I will use an illustration to prove my point. At the March 21 Council Meeting, the City Attorney, in reply to the question as to the legal aspect of Height Restriction, said, and I quote from the minutes: "Consideration should be given to the fact that the party buying property must be able to justify his investment. Also, ~t there is a question of what would be considered confiscatcry on the main . . " .... c -3- thorcughfare, as the City is in a different position than outlying areas. Also, there is not much land available in aspen and business may be forced tc go outside the City." To refute or at least question these remarks, we did some research. I quote: from the Law of Zoning written by Metzenbaum, 1955: "Matter of Farringtcn, NYLJ, April 9, 1938, page 1736, held the mere fact more profit cculd be derived from an investment, if business were permitted to be carried on, is not sufficient to establish a claim a zoning ordinance is not a valid exercise of the police power." "Similarly, Court Boulevard, Inc. v. Board, 72 NYS2d 753 (1947), at syl. 6 stated: "The mere fact that property may be put to a more profitable use is not enough to justify Board of Standards and Appeals in granting a variance of zoning regulations," I quote from another source: The Law of Zoning and Planning by Rathkopf, 1949: "With the growing tendency to build ever higher structures for office, business, apartment and tenement house use, it is apparent that provisions in ordinances limiting the height of buildings are a proper part of comprehensive zoning. High buildings shut off light and air from adjoining buildings, tend to bring about a congestion of streets and the parking of autcmobiles. . Limiting the height of buildings makes for safety from fire and other hazards and the courts have generally approved such provisions as tending to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the people." , ~ - o ...... '- ~ -4- Next I quote from: Land Use Controls by Horack and Nolan, 1955: "The height of structures is frequently regulated. In larger cities setback requirements insure sunlight reaching the street. In smaller cities tall buildings have been encouraged as a mark of progress. Little thought has been given to the fact. that one tall building can make fire fighting equipment obsolete and that the building concentrates traffic, overburdens existing sewer and water systems, and multiplies the parking problem. In general, professional advice to limit the height of business structures has gone unheeded; but where it has been followed the resulting ordinances have been sustained by the courts." Which brings up a point -- has anyone considered whether our Fire Department is equipped to handle a fire in a four story building? This last quote, is used in a slightly different context, 'd- but the philosophy behind ~ refers primarily concerned with amendments most directly to the recent decision made by the City Council. "It is the responsibility of the planning agency and of all officials and agencies concerned with zoning legislation and administration to see that the original zoning ordinance is improved and strengthened, rather than impaired and weakened, by amendments. There should be compelling reasons, which are neighborhcod - or community - wide in character, for an amendment to the zoning ordinance. An amendment is be almost certain tofunjustified if the reason for it is the particular situation of one or two lots. A proposed amendment should be tested as to its effect upcn the community as a whole; it should never be approved because there is no neighborhood objection to it." (Local Planning Administration, I.C.M.A. Chicago, 1948, page 246) < . o e ^ 'w o -5- In summary, gentlemen, we member~ of the Planning & Zoning Commission __ about to embark on comprehensive studies cf all phases of planning and zoning -- would like to know where we stand. The members of the Planning & Zoning Commission who endorse the above arc: ~ "IQ; "laid lealtJ. .~.' aspen, colorado boz 732 March 26, 1960 Mr. Herbert Bayer Aspen, Colorado Dear Herbert: I have just read over your letter to the citizens of Aspen c/o of the Aspen Times in the March 25, 1960 edition. I should like to compliment you upon its extremely well worded contents and to personally thank you for your most intelligent views ani your thoughts in attempting to preserve the natural beauty of Aspen. Mr. Kettering and I are formula ting a letter to the City Council immediately expressing our views today. Sincerely, , /(4</1 Roy Reid Realty RSR/mt / /1 , ~ CITY COUNTY TRAFTON BEAN Be: ASSOCIATES 2300 BROADWAY, BOULDER. COLORAOO HI 2-6654 ANO SCHOOL. PLANNING SERVICE SUBJECT: Fee Schedule Effective February I, 1960 Due to the necessity of adequately covering al I "indirect" costs as well as "di rect" costs, the followi ng method of charging for services shal I replace al I previous agreements entered into by this organization, unless other arrangements are made with the Official Agency: Personnel Services: Principal planner at the rate of $5.50 per hour, Associate planners at the rate of $4.50 per hour, Drafting services at the rate of $3.50 per hour, Special clerical services at the rate of $1.50 per hour; Indirect Operating costs:( I) Seventy Percent (70%) of the total Personnel Services chargeable above; Direct Project Expenses:(2) Charged at actual cost. (I) Rent, equipment, telephone, general secretarial costs, social security, taxes, insurance, sick leave, vacation, professional memberships, reference library, accounting, and other normal expenses involved in the operation of a professional office. (2) Materials, supplies, travel and subsistence, and printing. ., CITY CF ASH:N PLAlINOO AND ZONOO CCJfMlSSIOB Mareh 18, 1960 ./ -~? / The Honorable Ma10r City CoaDc.U C1"t7 or Aspen AspeD, Colorado Sirs 1 At a ..eting of the Aspen Pl......illg and Zon1Dg c-1slliclD, held on March 18, the applioation or Teno B,,*,_1140 tar a building perlll1t for a four Btor;y hotel-elotel vas discu8Ied. As the MaJor aDd CouDcll know, both the PlaJm1rlg aDd Zoning C-.B1on and the Board of Adjun.nt were b;y-pas88d beoaun 1D the He;y 29, 1958 reeolution reprding the I112igeeted he1iht or building. I'8qt11red thet the COlUlGll pus on building heights iD excess ot 25 teet. However, the P]A....fng and Zoll1ng ('---d,sion Wishes tc II8Ice SOlll8 intOJ'llllll 811ggeBtiolUl lIh1ch" pertain to the RoncallJ.o Jl8ftl1t. , It is our ".....4_ suggestion that DO deci810n be IIIlIde OD the gI'llIlting of a permit at the tirst COIIIlOil ..et1ng with Mr. RODoall1o or his attorne;y. We teal that 08I'8f'ul stud7 should be given of the plans, the proposed looation of the building and its etrects on the surrounding proJllll't7. The CoIIIlI1sll1on Wishllll to call to the attention 01' the COllllOll Section 9, Paragnph A of the Zoning ordinanoe. It 18 our reeling that the height of the building under discussion will tend to depreciate the ftlue ot S14...ounding buildings. We further feel thet if a permit were gl'anted for a 34-.40 toot building in the tour1st SODe 1t would set a dangerous preoadent iD cone1deration or 1'uture building perm1te. We should Uke to peiDt oat that the property in queat10n 18 OD the edge or the 1"8sidential d1etricn and that III8lI1' residences predating the Zoning ordin/ll108 would have their new to the South obstructed. COpy -2- Although the tollowing 18 not pertinent to the pft'III1t \D!81' dieCl1ll81on, the Pl8lU11ng and Zonil.lg C-s.ssion str~ feel. that 1 t is their duty to the 0-'''. V to protect the c .... ty interest over the interest ot pr1Yate property owners. It 0lU1 and will be argued that the cost of' property in the tCllU'ist aoII8 neC8sdtates an extentiOll of' the suggested 25 foot he1ih" llIII1t. It 1& the C~s101lts new that the arb1t1'U7 price placed en lot. in the tour1st or any other II,OJHI should not be a coJHIld81'at10n. If the applicant for a building pe1'll1t pleads hardeh1p, that also should not be a consideratlon. Respectrull:r subm1 tted, John F. DortIlIWI, Jr., Cba1rlllan Planning and Zoning c---4 "'lon CiV of Aapell CCI Mr. William R. Dunaway ,10 n\ g~ ~ ~~ ~ If yw<",-&--JfU\ ) ... .(c ','he T-Tonor'tlble f>'ayor City rou..'1cil (,i ty of Aspen I\.spen, Colorado ~ptJ 311'9 : At a meetinr of the Asnsn Planninf B~d Zoninf Commission, h81d >"!arch 18th, the application of Teno' Roncullio for a buildtnr permit for a f0ur-story hotel-motel was discussed. As the l'ayor anrl Council 1{now, both thG Plannin(' and i.oning , Commissio"n and the Board of I\.djustrnent were ry-passed because ~the Hay 29, 1958 resolution regarding the sugges""~r '-leight of buildings required that the council pass on building heights in excess of 25 feet. However, the Planning Ilnd Zonin[1" COlTlll'is3ton wishes to ma1.'s some informal suggestions which pertain to the qon"allio pe rmit . It is 0'11' unanirnous sur;gestion that C~..'!:.:;~ion be made on the rrantinr of a permit Ilt the first/meetinr ,ith Yr. Roncallto or ~is attorney. "Te feel that ce...eful study , sho~ld be riven of the pla.s, the proposed location of the buildinl nd its effects on the surroundin: property. , '"'he COl'1:r-lission wishes to call to the atteT1tion of the Council Section 9, Pararraph A 01' t~e Zoninr ordinance. It is our feelinl'" that the hei,ht of the bpildin under discussion , win tend to de?reciate the value of surround-in[' buildings. j 'lie further feel thpt if a permit were <cranted for a 34-40 foot bl'ild:l-nr in the tourist zone it '.oul" set a dan['"f'rous precedent in cons:l.derat19n of' future building p!lrmits. .113 should like . \ ~ . . ,.. .. , - 2 - to point out thut the ryropel'ty in ruestion is on the edge of the residential district and tlwt many residences predating t1ce Zoning ordinance would have the'r view to the South obstructed. Althouph the following'is not nertinent to the permit under discussion. the Planning and Zoninf r.ow~ission strongly feels that it is their duty to the community to protect tl1e community interest over the interest of private nropqrty owners. It can and will be arv,ued t~at the ~ost of prororty in the tourist zono necosl'itatcs an exj:ention of the suggested 25 f jot height lL.dt. It is the Cow ission's view thrt the arbitrary ?rice placed on lots in the tourist or anyother zone should not be a consideration. If the anpll""nj- for a buildinr permit pleads hardsnin, that a18(, s'lould not be a consi'ieration. I:espectfully submitted. Jor.n ')oremus, Chairman As' .en Planning and <;onlng Commission