Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19630827 ____~._..__.__^___ __._c'.'_ - _--. MINUTES 27 AUGUST 1963 -- CITY COUNCIL C~1BERS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ASPEN PL&~NING Al~D ZONING COMMISSION PITI<IN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COW1ISSION ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUST~ffiNT _00 "- -- ~'- o , E;-- L0 PRESENT WERE: FRED BENEDICT HENRY STEIN EDWARD MORSE HAROLD PABST JACK WALLS BILL MC EACHRi.~ FRANCIS WHITAKER JAMES MARKALUNAS BILL MASON WILLIAi'I JAMES IRV BURKEE KEN MOORE At 8:05 p.m., Jack Walls called the meeting to order and distributed permanent pamphlets to the City of Aspen Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members. These pamphlets are Mr. Planning Commissioner, for the Planning Commission members; and A Guide for Zoning Adiustment, for the Board of Adjustment members. These pamphlets are to be passed on to successors. Mr. Walls explained that the purpose of the combined meeting was to set up a more definite procedure whereby both City and County Planning Commissions and Boards of Adjustment could, through close coordination, enforce or ammend City ordinances and COill1ty resolutions more effectively. A discussion followed regarding Building Review. Mr. Markalunas stated that Section 9 of the Aspen Zoning Ordinance gave the Building Inspector authority to issue permits subject to review by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Whitaker said that it's more important to look at the overall pro- ject with regard to land use, off-street parking, ect., rather than t:jnN~ at architecture. Si",l1-j,lg the Honterey, California Preliminary Plan (in which Mr. Whitaker took part as a member of the Planning Commission), he stated his hope that a plan similar to Monterey's would meet with approval in Aspen, pointing out that it would be effective in preventing new structures being erected which would be out of character with the area: as example, the Aspen A;s. A similar plan would be useful in keeping the Planning Commissions in touch with what's happening in land usage. Mr. Whitaker stated that it is more logical to have the Building Review referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission before a building permit is granted or refused. Mr. Markalunas -2-- agreed, saying he would be releived of a responsibility if the permit were subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Walls suggested a common check list be established for use by the Planning and Zoning Commissions and the Boards of Adjustment as a method of procedure for verifying the location, set-back and height, parking facilities, land use, ect.. Regarding the ordinance changes in the Building Review, Walls stated that upon observation, the Commission's decision should first be subject to public hearing; .. the decision then should be published in the newspaper and memos should be sent to all architects, contractors, relators, ect.. Mr. James and Mr. Mason expressed approval. A suggestion was made that Aspen's land use map be kept up to date. Mr. Walls asked Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Stein to work out an ordinance for the city and a resolution for the county to clarify the powers of the Boards of Adjustment. Mr. Whitaker sighted the Denver Board of Adjustment's method of use-variance and a suggestion was made that the Planning Commission write to Denver and ask for a copy of their or- dinance regarding the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Mason stated that the use-variance had been "dropped in our laps" in the first place, when it actually belonged to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. James agreed, saying he would be grateful for this not to happen again. Mr. Whitaker stated that elsewhere granted use-variances have been referred to the State Supreme Courst and found to be illegal; he said this confused situation must be cleared up before we have a master plan in Aspen. A discussion followed regarding off-street parking. Pointing out that Aspen, by comparison, has no problem yet, Mr. Whitaker added that sufficient off-street parking facilities must be consistant with growth in order to avoid the "Carmel-Monterey Madhouse" Mr. Walls read the MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING section of the Aspen Zoning Ordinance and suggested the Planning Commission re-work same for all zoned areas - with special attention given to business pro- perties and tourist zone. Mr. Morse allowed that "adequate" off- August 20, 1963 Report on Off-street parking. Mr. Mike Garrish, Mayor, Mr. Jack Walls, Chairman, Planning Commission, Considerable information has been received through City Attorney Clinton Stewart on the subject matter. Most pertinent concerns the Denver case. This case involves an amendment to the comprehensive Denver Plan, imposing new regulations on a certain district. "Most important of these differences and one of those seriously contested in the litigation was that off-street parking was required of property owners in the B-6 District but not required in the B-5 District. - Held: The ordinance (the amendment) was void. It deprived plaintiffs of private property without due process of law, and was not a valid exercise of Denver's police power. It was di~iminatory and created a condition of "sub-serviency" in B-6 in favor of B-5." Colorado La.... Review, page 400. A'letter from the Staff Attorney of the Colorado Municipal League is attached, and your attention is called to paragraph four. A study of the Aspen Ordinance reveals ~hat there are off-street parking requirements for all districts but in the "U" District. May I suggest that Aspen continue its off-street parking requirements, as the Denver case, although sweeping in its decision, does concern a disriminatory amendment to a zoning ordinance, and that there is still a higher Court than the Colorado Supreme Court. The minority decision in the Denver case cites Supreme Court decisions upholding off-street parking requirements. May I further suggest that A.spen immediately amend its ordinance to require minimum off-street parking requirements in the "U" zone, so that the.-question of discrimination may not be raised, Respectfully submitted, C:!\~\,-W ~ Francis Whitaker, member, Planning and Zoning Commission. Cpt &~/L-- a7 ~~.5/~~5 - ..6 i CifiV 2.-V/ ~ 4v C:3 -~ 3 <Ii? Serving and Representing Cities and Towns Since 1923 Official Publication: Colorodo Municipalities Charter Member American Municipal Association Colorado Municipal League LEGISLATION . PUBLICATIONS . FIELD SERVICE . INFORMATION . RESEARCH 1557 24th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Phone: 443.0707 Executive Board Prelident David V. Dunklee Moyor Bow Mor Directors L, T. Allen Mayor Cortez A. E, Axtell City Manager Glenwood Springs (Secretary-Treasurer) C. Henry Cox Councilman Delta Don OesCombes Mayor Broomfield George Fellows City Manager Pueblo Harry W. Hath Mayor Colorado Springs John P. Holloway Mayor Boulder Robert B. Keating Councilman Denver Ray L, Patterson Mayor Lovelond Thomas F. Pound Mayor La Junto James H. Walker Mayor Sterling (Vice-President) Executive Director Joy T. Bell August 13, 1963 Mr. Clinton B. Stewart Stewart, Clark and Wendt Attorneys at Law P. O. Box 706 Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Stewart: Please forgive our tardy response to your letter dated August 5th concern- ing off-street parking. However, we were waiting to receive ordinances and other information to send along to you. Some of the information you desired is enclosed and more will be sent a little later. You asked about the Colorado court decisions affecting off-street parking requirements. Unfortunately, we do not have a good current sU1lll1l8ry of Colorado law on this subject. However, we have enclosed a copy of the Supreme Court's opinion in the case of City ~ County of Denver ~ Denver Buick, Inc. et. al. and several related law review articles. As you pro- bably know, the Denver Buick decision is the leading Colorado case on the matter of off-street parking. The general consensus of opinion among municipal attorneys is that this decision is bad law, but the fact remains that this case will probably determine the legality of off-street parking provisions in zoning ordinances for some time to come. The enclosed law review articles from Dicta and Rocky Mountain Law Review discuss the subject of zoning generally and the problem posed by the Denver Buick case. These are as close as we can come to a synopsis of the present law in Colorado. There may be other similar articles, but these are what we had available. Generally speaking, it appears that most municipalities in this state have not changed their off-street parking requirements, notwithstanding the Denver Buick case. Apparently, there is some feeling that the court will change its mind on this issue. At any rate, several communities still have off-street parking provisions which seem to contravene the principles set forth in the Denver Buick case. Of course, Denver is stuck with the ruling and is trying to live by it. At the present time, Denver is en- forcing their off-street parking requirement through the back door; this is accomplished by permitting the builder to go up another floor level, if off-street parking is provided. Pursuant to your request for sample ordinances, we have enclosed copies of pertinent provisions from Boulder, Englewood, Greeley, Pueblo and the suggested NIMLO ordinance. The NIMLO ordinance is the closest to the model ordinance you requested, but is not exactly applicable to Colorado, in view of the Denver Buick case. In addition, we hope to send you in the near future a transcript of the proceedings at this year's Mayor's and Councilmen's Institute where this Mr. Clinton B. Stewart -2- August 13, 1963 subject was discussed. Mr. Earl Thrasher, Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of Denver, made some remarks related to the off-street parking problem. Upon receiving it, we will definitely send it on to you, if it has any value. Hope this material will be of some help. Sorry that we couldn't do more. This is a tough problem to handle. Please let us know if the League can be of service to you or the City of Aspen on any other municipal problem. Sincerely, COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ~;;tU ~ Charles B. Howe Staff Attorney -3- street parking might "shoot the hell out of the Real Estate Business", and momentarily considered going into the Parking-Lot~Game because "that's where the money will be". Others assured Mr. Morse that this would not be the case. (Insert--copy of Mr. Whitaker's letter to Walls and Garrish) Mr. Humphrey pminted out the difficulty Guido had with non-customers' use of his lot, and suggested that the City take advantage of offers like Mr. Kalmes', who said the City could use his vacant lot if they'd care to grade and fence it for parking. Humphrey said the City could probably find plenty of off-street parking in this manner for use as a temporary measure. Mr. Whitaker moved that the City Planning and Zoning Commission write to the City Council asking them to instruct the Building :nspe:tor tn enforce off-street parking. Mr. Walls seconded. ~~V\~~ Markalunas adked how he was to determine what's "out of character" in regard to granting a building permit. Whitaker said this should be up to the Planning Commissions who should first look over each plan as it comes in. Walls suggested that a member of the City Planning Commission sit in on all Board of Adjustment meetings. He mentioned that this had been discussed with the Mayor and that the Mayor indicated that such an appointment could be possible, thus giving better coordination between the two Boards. All present agreed this was a good idea. MEETING ADJOURNED----9:30 p.m. =!!!!!!!!!! 1 . Mr. Riohard L. Brown Colorado State Planning Division 712 state Services Bldg. 1,25 Sherman street D'~T1Ver 3, Cf)lor~do Deter llr. Drown: Thank you very muoh for your letter informing us that Bo~eone from your off10e would be present ut our meetin~ on Auguet 19th. The meeting 1s sohedule fer 7:30 P.M. 1n the Oity Oounoil Ohambers. Representatives from all intereeted organ12uticne in the city will be present for this preliminary dis- oussion with Ur. Wiener. S1ncorely, E ill ucEacnern, Secretary Aepen Plann1ng COlrrJiseion P. Q. :'0;;: 153 Aspen, 00101'000 , . Yr. J. K. Smith Colorado State Plannin~ Commission 130 St3te Office Building Denver 2, Colorado Dear IIr. 3m1 th: I am writing you for two reasons. The first is that Wr. Paul ~iener pl~ns to be in Aspen on August 19th to meet with the City Council and the City Plenntng Commission. We thought it possible that slnoe the state is ilNolved ill ~id,1l lndee-vcl' that YuU 1D.I.~t 11ke to be present or have a representative prEli>ent. II so. 1st us lenow and we will give you furtMl' .:letails. The seoond r~~8on is to eee if the state Planning Commission hae any informll.tion on the proceedures for Urban Renewal or any other infOrrD:\tlon on Urban liene.-al that our PlltnnlnR Oommission might use. Sincerely. Bill McEaohern. Sec~etary Aspen PlallIling Oo~rni as ion