Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19640708 The above hearing was held in the District Courtroom of the Pitkin County Courthouse at 7:30 P. M. The City Council present: Planning commission members present: Mayor Pabst _ Jack Walls, Chairman Councilmen Barnard Richard Lai Kuste~ Francis Whitaker McEachern Stapleton Also present: Mrs. H~ffmann - 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 p~rtion of Business District in the West end to Tourist. 8 - Density Control in the Tourist mstrzct. 9 - Maximum height of buildings in the Tourist District-25 Ft. 10 - To provide number and size of curb cuts in all districts. 11 - To provide a procedure for building meview 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, and 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 3uly 20~ 196~. 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 minute limit on each ordinance. The Mayor then read Ordinance No. 10 - Series of 1964 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the number and size of curb cuts in all districts. (Its inclusion 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 ~one but he does not think the residential area will be included next year. Guy Drew - lodge owner - asked about irrigation ~itches - and was told - not in business district but may be considered if feasible in other areas. 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 ~ indicated on plot plans. Ordinance No. 11, Series 1964, Amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide procedure for building review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, read by Mayor Pabst. . Letter dated July 1, 1964, from Attorney Jack Kane - Mayor Pabst reag excerpt opposing building review. Rob Roy -~ asked about "neighboring property". Walls explained purpose is har- monious development that there is no enforcible power - just recommendation - and he feels Planning Commission should review plans. Councilman McEachern - one purpose is to keep land use ma~ 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 t~e provision that ~o building permit may be issued before plans are approved by Commission could result in court action. He feels Aspen is legislating '~greater ~ood for ~reater number" and overlooking the individual, and restrictions may be put into contract or deed of conveyance. Lai - feels Planning Commission should be consulted. Sandy Luhnow - owner - feels plans should meet building and zoning requirements and 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 though~t 30 days for review is too long. Sandy Luhnow - thought time period set up is a protection. 3ack 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 3ack Kane protesting this amendment. Rob Roy - how did Commission arrive at figure of 25 feet. Mayor Pabst referred to County height restriction of 25' and problems in- volved where City boundary line runs through building sites. Rob Roy - suggested 25 .feet to cave line to get away from flat roofs. Roy referred to planning apartments and motels - height restriction and off-street parking present economic factor - fire equipment can reach 35 feet and he feels height should be more flexible. 3ack Walls feels "cave line" has merit with limited pitch. General discussion followed. Sandy Luhnow - feels l0 ft. set-back from alley should be reviewed, as this encourages junk collection. Pope Rowland - how is 25 ft. height to be determined. Planning Commission is working on this and alley set-back. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1964, Amending Title XI Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and 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 ~alls 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-confor~ning use for Waterman's service station and store. As Waterman is no longer there, the principal use is now tourist. The area is not in Fire Zone 1 and 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. and Gerald Payne- Block 16 Lots C and D Merritt N. and Olivia Van Sickle All of Blocks 5, 6, and 11 upon which the Villa has been built. 3ack Kane- attorney For the Van Sickles. Reference was made ~o phone call from Kit Dobbins - Block 22, Lots K and L - he feels present zoning is not detrimental to his property. The following letters - for rezoning were then read by Mayor Pabst: Joseph and Anna L. Hauser 834 West Main. Mary J. Menig- K. 3can Vogenthaler - Thomas 3. Vogenthaler - Clara M. Stutler Block 18, Lots G. H, and I. Letters opposing the building of a gas station in the West end were also read. Mayor ~abst 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 understand that the area is already zoned business - she would not be opposed to a Nas station operation similar to the Waterman's. Leslie Gross attorney for Villa of Aspen (Van Sickle) - The Agate Lodge Gene T. Frey - D. F. and 3uanita Dikkers - Elizabeth Paepcke - Anna Borgeson. Mr. Gross said his clients had acquired the property after 1956 - being required to pay for business property, and would be damaged by rezoning. His examination of City records indicates that this area in the West end has always been zoned business not by mistake, but intentionally, and he feels those who own land there are entitled to rely oN the zoning. He said there is no reason to destroy property values and cited law cases. Mr. Gross said Ordinance ND. 6, Series of 1956 - Zoning - is invalid due to deficiencies in the procedure in connection with its preparation and 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 ClerkTs office). Attorney Gross said 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. Janet Gaylord, representing the Aspen Civic Association, referred to corner at Sgvgnth and Hallam as a hazard, and 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 and 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" - and Denver-Buick case; also off-street parki6g. 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 opposing 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 a~tempt should be made to get public cpinion on this matter. Ria Bey~r - referred to Aspen program of advertising - why advertise if we do not want to attract people. ~ Jim Emerson - question~dTlegality 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 - and 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 or 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 and 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 sale-ability of property. Lou Wille - asked why lodge owners should provide all the parking. Asked if City is buying property for public parking. Jack Walls - parking to be considered in long range plan. Jim Moore - feels parking should not fall entirely on lodge owners and small businesses and referred to the ski area parking problem. John Wendt - suggested that Council appoint a citizens' committee for con- structive proposals and projection of what the c~tizenry 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 Aspen. Sandy 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 and recommended compromise ordinance to .permit good growth. Leslie Gross referred to Section 139-60 Subsection 1, Revised Statutes - re density, and does not feel density ordinance would accomplish this. Hans Gramiger - As City Council and Planning Commission represent City they should work to-gether. The hearing was recessed until 7:30 P.M. Wednesday, July 15, 1964, upon motion by Councilman McEachern, seconded by Councilman Kuster and carried. (11:15 P.M.) Aspen, Colorado Recessed Hearing - Aspen City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission. July 15~ 1964. Mayor Pabst opened the recessed hearing at 7:55 P.M. Present were: City Council Mayor Pabst Councilman McEachern Councilman Barnard Councilman Stapteton City Clerk - Dorothy Hoffmann Planning and Zoning Commission Jack Walls Chairman Richard Lai (In the District Courtroom - County Courthouse.) Mayor Pabst said the Planning and Zoning Commission, at their meeting held July 14, 1964, had recommended that Ordinance No. 9 - Height Restriction in Tourist Zone - 25 feet. Ordinance No. 10 - Curb Cuts Ordinance No. 11 - Building Review Ordinance No. 12 - Adoption of R-15 Zone be accepted as read at the public hearing on July 8, 1964; also that Ordinance No. 8 - Density Control - be tabled; and that Ordinance No. 7 - be tabled until ~urther legal consultation. (Rezoning in West end from Business District to Tourist) The Commission also recommended that-Council form an advisory committee con- sisting of - one lodge owner one member of the Chamber of Commerce. one realtor one person from Aspen Civic Association one member of the clergy two citizens at large. to work with the Planni.ng Commission. Mayor Pabst felt it was not advisable to open the meeting to public discussion, and referred to the r~gular Council meeting to be held July 20, 1964. Hans Gramiger said he felt there should be further discussion, since this is a recessed public hearing. The Mayor then read a petition filed in protest of the rezoning in the West end business to tourist. Sid Wheeler - said he hopes council will have legal advise before the regular meeting on July 20th - and also referred to 25 foot height restriction - which he felt will result in flat roofs - resulting in more conformity than individuality. Aspen, Colorado Recessed Hearing - Aspen City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 1964 - Continued Bill Chambers ~ Lodge owner - referred to proposed density control and sug- ~ested that there are two areas where there are planning problems - i.e. - at the base of the Little Nell slope and at the foot of the big mountain; he said the parking problems there should be first considered. Regardin~ a survey, he suggested someon~ contact owners who know the problems involved and get a cross-section of opinion; also referred to economic control. Jack Walls referred to proposed committee and said each group is to choose its representative. Jay Dikkers - said that not once prior to this hearing were the property owners in the business district in the West end called in for discussion that they are aware of their rights - and asked that, before any more action is taken, property owners confer with Council and Planning Commission - that he does not want detri- mental businesses in that area, and would like to discuss fire zone, set backs, struc- tural materials etc. before further action is taken. Jack Walls said this matter had been discussed with the property owners, and Mr. Dikkers said not with him, and he felt something was being pushed over on him. Mayor Pabst said the procedure followed was legal, and he felt the people do res- pond to it. Guy Drew said he felt present zoning should remain, as property owners bought it as in the business zone - they do not wish to deface the West end of town - they .feel there is pressure to get the rezoning through - he feels this is a good business area, an~ that any further zoning should be discussed. Jack Walls referred to public relations and fact that the Planning Commission has tried to let public know what is goin~ on. Discussed - meetings are open to public; and usually reported in the local newspaper - that the Planning Commission is a voluntary job, and it would be an im- position to expect the members to canvass the City for opinions. Steen Gantzel - felt density control ordinance should not have been introduced without further study. Bill Beyer said lodge owners appreciated Jack Walls' appearance at their meeting and discussion on proposed ordinances. The hearin~ was adjourned at 8:30 P.M., upon motion by Councilman Stapleton, seconded by Councilman Barnard, and carried.