HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19670306 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6~ 196/
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Barnard at 3:35 p.m. with Councilmen David
Stapleton, Werner Kuster, William McEachern, City Attorney Janet Gaylord and City
Administrator Leon Wurl.
Accounts payable were g~ven to Councilman Stapleton to check.
There being no corrections to the minutes as,mailed, all in favor of approval of
same.
PUBLIC HEARING - South Side Annexation - Hearing was opened by Mayor Barnard. There Public Hearing
were no comments from those persons present and nothing received by mail. The follow- South Side Annex.
lng Res61ution was read in full by Mayor Barnard.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen has accepted a petition for
annexation which was filed with the City Clerk on January 30th, 1967, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the 6th day of March, 1967
regarding said annexation;
AND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen makes the following findings
o~fa~t regarding said annexation;
1. There is at least one-sixth contiguity between the present City of Aspen
and the area seeking annexation.
2. A community of interest exists between the territory to be annexed and the
City, as evidenced by the following facts;
A. More than 50 percent of the adult residents of the area to be
annexed use part or all of the recreational, civic, social, religious
industrial or con~nercial aczlztzes of the City of Aspen, and more
than 25 per cent of the adult residents are employed in the City of Aspen.
B. Less than one-half of the land to be annexed is agricultural.
C. It is physically practical to extend normal urban services to the
area to be.annexed, on the same terms and conditions as such services
are available to residents of the City of Aspen.
AND WHEREAS, there has not been filed with the City of Aspen any petition
for an annexation election and no election egardzng said annexation is required under ~
r '
the laws of the State of Colorado; and no additional terms or conditions to the petition
for annexation have been imposed by the Council.
567
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Public Hearing
south side Annex NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City df Aspen
finds that, the statutory provisions for annexation having been complied with,
it will proceed to annex said territory by ordinance.
DATED THIS 6th DAY OF MARCH, 1967.
! ~ Councilman Stapletbn made a motion to adopt the foregoing Resolution as read in full.
Seconded by Councilman McEachern. Roll call vote - Councilmen Kuster aye; McEachern
aye; Stapleton aye.
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES 1967, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION ~ THE CITY OF
Ord.#4,South Sid ASPEN, COLORADO, OF THAT CERTAIN'TERRITORY OR REAL ESTATE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
Annexation IN THIS ORDINANCE LYING OUTSIDE BUT ADJACENT TO SAID CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as read
in full for the first time by Mayor Barnard.
Councilman Stapleton moved to approve Ordinance #4, Series'1967 as read in full for
the first time. Seconded by Councilman McEachern. Roll call vote - Councilmen
Stapleton aye; McEachern aye; Kuster aye.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Barnard.
Councilman Clymer arrived.
Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING - Title XI - Zoning was opened by Mayor Barnard.
Title XI
verbatim ORDINANCE #3, SERIES 1967, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XI, CHAPTER 1, OF THE ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, PERTAINING TO ZONING, AND DECLARING ANEMERGENCY TO
Ord. #3 Title EXIST was read in full for the first time by the City Council.
XI - Zoning
Mayor Barnard - To facilitate the discussion here, I would like those people who
have comments'from the floor tO introduce themselves and go through'the points that
they may have. -
Tony Berumen - There are two points that I noticed here. One is in establishing
the side yards you go from lot line on the side to the building wall. I understand
in this area you have wide eaves, this might present a problem.
Jerry Brown - It is under definitions "Yard - Side". Here it says measurered in
the least hOrizontal distance between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the
principal building.
Tony Berumen - It might be safer to make that distance from the eave line. We have
wide eaves in this climate and the eaves might come so close to the property line
that the snow from one building would fall on the neighbors.
Also you should consider allowing structures such as efficiency apartments in the
residential areas. Under the present wording you have to have 600 sq.ft, for a
dwelling and I wrote a letter to the Planning Commission on my feelings on this.
I do think we need smaller unitS like studio apartments in'the tOurist and business
areas, accomodations that are for permanent residents, you have no single or smaller
units.
Mayor Barnard - Are you'talking~about a dwelling?
Tony Berumen - Yes. Lets suppose that if you wanted to build a real small house on
6000 sq.ft. You would have a lot of open space. That would be desirable from the
point of density. There is'no limit tO what you can-build aS long as you abide
by the set backs. You can clam this lot full which is not desirable. Instead
of establishing a maximum, this law establishes a minimum.
Jerry BrOwn - Back to the first Point, this projection into side yards. Under
"Supplementary Regulations" you are allowed to have a building eave 18" into the
yard. Now if you want to but a 4" eave, you have to move that main building back
to where that eave only comes 'within 1-1/2' to cover 1-1/2' of the yard.
Councilman Stapleton - Between the property line and eave?
Jerry Brown - No. Say you have 5' set back, you can have 3-1/2' and 18" projection.
Cannot go below 3-1/2'.
Now on minimum floor area for dwelling units~ 'I am 'not an expert on building but
there is some provision in the Building Code where dwelling units can build. As
a Planner, my intention was in the residential district to have as large units
! as ~os~ible for better living conditions. I think a required yard will provide
our open space. I dOn't think the smaller the units will provide more open space.
That is not completely valid, because then it might be possible to add another unit.
Tony Berumen - You have a ratio of land per unit there.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Tony Berpmen - I know that but as much as you have stipulated land area for living Public Hearing
units, it is possible that the smaller the unit will give the man more area for open ~itle XI-Zoning
space.
Jerry Brown - Okay, lets check the definition there.
Mayor Barnard - I really ~uestion the validity 6~ your position, Tony, assuming
people would build monthly rentals on a given site. It seems to me you get down to
a size of dwelling below which you cannot reasonably go.
Tony Berumen - Actually what I had in mind is in regards to this low cost housing.
If you ~11 recall Nausbaum proposed building something out at the dump, felt there was
a need for combination of units.
MayorBarnard - Tony, don't you invision this as a multiple family dwelling type
situation, an apartment house rather than individual little dwellings.
Tony Berumen - In the area that is being zoned for multiple families, it might be
desirable to have a combination of units including apartments. Under the present
definitions it does not allow for studio apartments.
Mayor Barnard - Let me ask Jerry Brown this one under Section 11-1-3 (a) there is
a category "R-PC Residential Planned Community Combining Area Districts". Now would
this encompass an apartment house?
Jerry Brown -No. That combining district would be for only single family dwellings
which allows an averaging of the lot area. Would not want to droP the entire
regulations back to allow what we are hoping to get decent living accomodations
become in effect substandard. For reference, I think the smallest unit we have
in town is the Park Meadows which is 300 sq.ft. Hardly enough room for one
person. What we need is some good multiple family dwellings.
Councilman Stapleton - There are some new apartments on the west end of town called
the Victorian Apartments. They are very nice units that are for one or two people
$115 or $125 a month including utilities. They are 600 or 675 sq.ft. In these
units you get one or two people in there with luggage, you can't even turn around.
Mayor Barnard - Can't see that in the future it will work any hardship on people tha~
a dwelling has to be 600 sq.ft.
Jerry Brown - That is not an accomodations unit.
Mayor Barnard - 375 is the amount of lot space per unit. It does not say how big the
unit has to be. Its like taking 6000 sq.ft, and dividing it by 375 which would allow
you 16 units, but the units might be different sizes.
Luke Anthony - I think the thing that Tony is driving at is probably Section 11-1-9
(c) "Minimum Floor Area". I think if a person wants to build a duplex consisting of
normal sizable, very small studio apartment under 600 sq.ft., he should be permitted
to. Can,t see any reason why he should not be able to.
Tony Berumen - What I had in mind is along the lines of what Nausbaum proposed.
Buildings that would accomodate different situations, such as singles with enough
space, say 400 sq.ft.
Mayor Barnard - We have in affect that for example you want to talk about multiple
family dwelling building. A dormitory is that, it is only a unit of 250 sq.ft.
Tony Berumen - That is done in the commercial and tourist areas reserved for commerce
and tourist as the condominiums. The same thing may arise by people who want one
room apartments approaching the business district and tourist. They should be in an
area that is set aside for small type family dwellings.
Mayor Barnard - I think we are getting the issue confused here.
Jerry Brown - We seem to be talking about 1st of all efficiency apartments, and then
it seems we are talking about the relationship of efficiency apartments to single
family houses. We have an allowance for an accessory guest unit in any of our resident-
ial districts which don't contain kitchen facilities so, therefore, are not considered
as permanent type units. As a Planner, I am a little bit concerned when I see a
substandard unit going in a residential diStrict being intended for long term occupancy.
Tony Berumen - I still point out this report from the low cost housing con~nittee and
as a result Nausbaum submitted this plan for so many units of each category. Some of
those were efficiency apartments.
Reg~!~_r_Me_~_~i_D~_ .................... ~spen City Council .............. March 6, 1967
Public Hearing Mayor Barnard - Why do you keep wanting to relate that Tony to how big a dwelling
Title XI-zonxn must be on a given piece of real estate. Are you going to talk about apartment houses
~ talk about them, but if you are going to talk about a dwelling on a piece of land,
we are getting mixed up here.
Tony Berumen - Then in that case, I will simply just state that Nausbaum apparently
felt that there was a demand for it.
Mayor Barnard - Jerry Brown don't you see the time coming when we might designate a
certain area in the City for multiple family dwellings mainly apartment houses and
then spell out what those will be. Couldn't we do it in the frame work of this new
Title XI.
Jerry Brown ~ I would say in this case to wait instead of starting to relax the
standards right off and see if we get any developments later on for apartments which
are not strictly rentals.
Luke Anthony - In a residential area where you have a 6000 sq.ft, lot, if a person
wanted to put a very small efficiency type unit under 600 sq.ft., would that be
prohibited.
Jerry Brown - That is correct.
James Moore - Is it the same in tourist?
Jerry Brown - No. When you get into accomodations, then there is no limit on the size.
Mayor Barnard - Would like to congradulate the Planning Commission and Jerry Brown
on this mass of work.
Councilman McEachern - Under Section 11-1-12 #4 the reasons for granting a variance.
You have done ~away with hardship and substituted special conditions and circumstances.
Jerry Brown - Hardship is tiem 3 under Board of Adjustment Power and Duties and #4
are the reasons.
Mayor Barnard - I thought Jerry you had decided to knock out that practical difficulties.
Jerry Brown - I thought we had too. ~.; ~ .
Attorney Gaylord - I put it back in because that is the way the Statutes read. Whether
you put it in or not they have to follow the State Statutes.
Mayor Barnard - So they have two grounds, practical difficulties and hardship.
Administrator Wurl - That is covered in the first paragraph where it says, "they shall
have the power and duties all of which shall be exercised subject to the laws of the
State of Colorado".
Luke Anthony - Question about "Procedure - the concurring vote of 4 members of the
Board shall be necessary to reverse any order". As I understand it there are five
members on the Board.
Mayor Barnard - Yes
Luke Anthony- So you always have one member of the Planning and Zoning Commission on
that. I do not see why you don't have three.
Attorney Gaylord - This is set up by the State Statutes.
Councilman Stapleton - Jerry, under Supplementary Regulations Signs #il you speak
of tearing down all;the signs around here that do not conform. Are you going to
tear them down.
Jerry Brown , I think this is legal, as far as putting it on something as inexpensive.
It is difficult to drive out a non, conforming building, .this is.the major investment.
I feel it is legal to set an amortization date~on a sign. Within one or five years
you have your use out of it. It then becomes a problem of action by the Building
Inspector and then the City;to request removal of the signs. Sometimes zoning cordin-
ances work more as a nuisance ordinance than~as.a letter of the law~ When the Council
approves this ordinance, it is on the books and this would become an administrative
problem for enforcement. ~ ~ .~ ~:
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Public Hearin;
Title XI-zOni ~g Jerry Brown - Food and beverage is men~iomed there.
Hans Gramiger - For this type of use you mentioned 1-1/2 spaces per 1000 sq.ft.
National standards for large chain stores is quite a bit more maybe 6 more. If some-
one would build under this ordinance, a 12,000 sq.ft, store he would have to ~nly pro-
vide space for 18 cars. Whereas, the national average would be 120 spaces. Don't
understand this because the next problem for Aspen is going to be a grocery store,
with a parking problem.
Jerry Brown - First of all, if a grocery store is going to build here, if it is a
respentRble chain, will go by their own standards. NOw we.~dst finished with some
off street parking standards that were in affect here for 4 or 5 years, which were
so restrictive we did not create one new space. You can't pick out one single
use and say that it needs more than any other store, this is sort o'f unconstitutional.
Another reason is most of the stores thathave their standards are going to shopping
centers so they can provide their own parking on their own site. We took national
observed uses of general parking~requirements and sliced them in half figuring any-
one coming down to the downtown area makes two stops. .
Hans Gramiger - Under C-2 you again are a}lowing residences in the C-2. If you allow
a residence next to a lumber yard it would be a definite fire hazard.
Councilman Clymer - Would depend on how the lumber yard is laid out and pzo{ected.
Jerry BrOwn - Your Fire and Building Codes are the determining factors here. Would
say generally most lumber yeards are better protected thean residences.
Lyman Bielefeldt - I have a letter here from the Lodgeing .Association, need an
interpretation of Section 11-1-10 Paragraph (g) ask if this new ordinance dosen't
make. the Parking requirements more difficult to comply with. Paragraph (g) dis-
courages improvements of existing properties. Lodge owners would like that to read
"that so long as any new development provides the parking required for Such expansion
it should be allowed without reference to the existing part".
Jerry Brown - We have written that section twice, trying to get the same thing across.
Off street parking existing non-conforming uses, in otherwords, a lodge with insuff-
icient parking. Existing non-conforming uses in relation to parking, a lodge with
insufficient parking shall not be expanded unless the increment of expansion, in
other words, not the old part but the new part can meet the requirements of this or-
dinance. So if you have an existing lodge and want to build a new wing, it does not
change what existed before and makes the new increment come under the requirements.
Mayor Barnard - In other words, we are not making it retroactive. ~
Lyman~Bielefeldt -.It says existing non-conforming.uses in relation to. parking shall
not-be, changed, to-a..more intensive, use.unless the entire area changed to a more-
intensive use can be developed to meet parking requirements of this ordinance.
Jerry Brown - The first one is when you want to add to the present use. The second
one is say you have a very low intensive use cOmmercial use that does not need the
parking requirements, you can't change that to a food store which is high intensive
use without conforming to the parking requirements. . ~, ~
Attorney Gaytord - I have a question under definitions (p) Lot Area~ Think it
should read "The total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot or lots or
parcel".
Administrator Wurl - If you read the definition of a lot up above that covers that.
A lot is a parcel.
Attorney Gaylord - No with a separate and dis~nct number, in other words,-it is
singular.
Administrator Wurl - Further on it defines more than just a lot with a number, or
letter. It says one that has been recorded in a subdivision or parcel of real
property.
Attorney Gaylord - When it is not platted with a number, Thurston always had Problems
with this. ' ~ :
Administrator~Wurl - Thurston isn't~the building inspector anymore.
Luke Anthony - The problem with a hearing like this is that it takes so long to read
the ordinance that people are real~&mpatient:at.this point. I have 6 or'7~questions
more to bring up. Would like to suggest that you continue this:hearing to another
time when you won't have to read the whole ordinance.
572.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Mayor Barnard- No. We are not going to do it. Bring up what you want, but we are Public Hearing
not going to procrastinate here just for your benefit. We would be happy to answer Title XI-zoning
your questions.
James Moore - In looking at the zoning map, I assume the westerly part of the present
business district now i$ 5 lots business ~heother 4. tourist and they go all the way
up the mountain.
Jerry Brown - That is exactly as it was.
James Moore I thought you were going tO show us a proposed, change
Jerry Brown - Tom Benton had a meeting with several of the people up there and they
decided to leave it just the way it was.
James Moore I object to the fact that you are not allowing for filling stations
in this proposed C-1 Commercial area unless they are in conjunction with parking lots
and/or garages parking faciltiy.
I object to something in the sign ordinance, but do not want to make an issue of~that.
Under Section 11-1-9 (d) #4 "Yards in Developed Areas". It says where an unbuilt
lot is bordered by property, did you change anything there.
Jerry Brown - I don't think their is any change. What it allows for is where the
property is already developed on both sides of a vacant lot, there is no use making
that fellow conform to a set back that the other two are mot conformed, to.
James Moore - Here is the problem that I would have in this yard provisions. The
cormmercial area in the west end is actually increased 5 lots of business. It wouldn't
bother me, but you have in here somewhere that you could not use for parking. For
instance lets take the whole vacant lot west of the Crystal Palace. If someone wanted
to build a food store in there, you couldn't build on the 15,000 sq.ft, east edge
of it and use the other 4 lots for parking.
Jerry Brown - No, we fixed that.
James Moore - That is why I don't think you should shove through your zoning here
today until a person has a chance to see these things.
Mayor Barnard- Do you know how long we have been working on this thing.
Councilman McEachern - You had the same excuse for the Master Plan.
James Moore - I am ready to get it over with boom or bust, but I don't want to have
to have a lot of law suits started or start one myself 2 weeks after this is passed.
Mayor Barnard- The Planning and Zoning has.already had a hearing on this which I didn'
notice you attending.
James Moore - I have been to every advertsied public meeting there has been.
Mayor Bernard - You weren't at the Planning and Zoning hearing on this because I was
there.
James Moore - I was there.
Tom Benton - That was exactly when this point was straightened out on this parking
from business into tourist.
William Runaway - The Planning and Zoning agreed to your provision there.
James Moore - Okay, I just haven't had time to see it. I am glad of this.
Luke Anthony - Under Section 11-1-9 Off Street Parking required parking for multiple
family dwelling. One thing you have is 2 different types of multiple family dwellings
in Aspen. You have condominiums and the permanent year around multiple family rentals.
Now when you are dealing with the permanent year around rentals, you probably need just
this 1-1/2 space per dwelling unit. Now on the condominium they are probably not more
than half full at any one time. So it has been working out very well with one parking
space per dwelling unit. Don'~ see how you will handle it, but 1-1/2 space per
dwelling unit is not needed for general condominiums.
5'73
Aspen City Council
........................... ~_~B~l~_..~e~_t_iDg March 6~ 1967
Public Hearing Mayor B'arnard - Your speaking almost particularly, of condominiums.
Title XI-zoning
Luke Anthony - Yes
Mayor Barnard- This is a good point, but I think a condominium is more like a motel
'. owned by a lot of people.
Jerry Brown - We bent around the bushes on this one. If it is operated as a lodge,
motel or hotel it requires 2 spaces per. unit..You, can't work with ownership on a
zoning ordinance because you cannot enforce it. If it is operated on a short
term rental 2 spaces, if operated as an apartment house then 1-1/2 spaces.
Luke Anthony - Would you call a 3 bedroom apartment one unit.
Jerry Brown - That depends on building review. If you can close it off and rent
it separately, close off a bedroom and bathroom and rent that as a unit.
Councilman Stapleton - So a condominit~ owner can sell 2 condominiums on the
permanent population and still fall under this 1-1/2 space parking provisio~, even
though he may have 21 units for rent or §ale. He could rent 19 out, but the guy
across the street with a motel that has to provide 2 spaces for 3 units and this guy
could get by with 1-1/2.
Mayor Barnard- It is not a matter of getting by with it, its more restrictive than
2 for 3. In other words, he would rather be considered as a motel because it is easier.
Jerry Brown - It is difficult by law to distinguish between a multiple family dwelling.
It will be up to the Planning and Zoning and Board of Adjustment by the building
plans to decide whether this is short term thing or not.
Luke Anthony - I hope this is understood by the Council who is passing these laws
that we are going to try and follow this interpretation. If a condominium is being
used as a lodge, we will take a look at the number of units they will be renting
out and it will be on the same basis as a lodge 2 spaces per 3 un~ s.
Mayor Bernard That is our intention.
Jerry Brown - The district willhave some bearing on. this. If it_ is in a multiple
family district, it is going to meet multiple family requirements. You don't have
a lodge in a multiple family district.
Tom Benton - Don't think you are going to find plans going through building review
and being approved as one thing and then someone come back in and say now going to
change the parking requirements.~
Mayor Barnard Right, because those parking requirements would be determined at
the time the:plans, are approved and the building was:built.
Luke Anthony - You don't have any quarrel over this that we are talking about right
now, Tom:.
Tom Benton - No, it will be tough. A lot will depend on the number of units going
in. Most condominiums are built with separate doors so you have a public hall in
which one unit can be completely isolated from the other.~ That would be the deter-
imination o6 whether it is one unit or 2 units.
Mayor Bernard It is almost impossible to cover every situation in an ordinance of
any kind. Wewill try and deal with~any variations the fairest way we can.
Luke Anthony - Just as long as we know your intentions.
James Moore - You changed under Section 11-1-9 (d) #4 the~old ordinance was confusing.
Explain to me if only one of the adjacent property owners has been improved with the
set backs for new construction shall conform to these regulations. Foryards in
developed areas, now what~I am thinking, do you embrace C-1 residential east of the
City Hall, everyone will be non-conforming.
Jerry Brown Not really. Don't think we have much of any yards in the C-1. In the
present ordinance but the new regulations do not permit new uses to create those
yards.
James Moore - There will be some over there that will be non-conforming of some,kind
then if you decide to build a new building you would have to set back 5' tourist
accomodation at 10'. You would have to build out 7-1/2' rather than have to go out
to the property line.
574
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6~.!967
Jerry Brown - That is a good point. Where you have existing yards, what we :are saying Public Hearing
now is you don't have to have those yards. The fact that they have them does not Title XI-zoning
mean they are non-conforming. It is non-conforming .if they don't meet the minimum.
They have over the minimum we are saying no front yard set back required. So a new
building going, in'is not going to have to set back because the adjacent did..
James Moore - Now in the tourist area, say out west one house is set back 5' from the
front line of the street and one:is 10', if you built a tourist motel in the middle
of the block would he have to'build 7-1/2' back.
Jerry Brown - He would have to build at 10!. I~ there was one already at 5' on either
side then he could come up to that 5'. We have an average worked out there.
James Moore - There are some lodges out on the west end that are not only 5; or 7'
from the front line but also right on the alley line.
Luke Anthony - Wonder if buildings similar to the Aspen Alps will be continued with
their height. TheAspen Alps new building on the hill,generally run about four
stories, and it seems quite practical the way they have it set up. You drive behind
them in the street which~is basically in~,the middle, of the building You can,walk
either up 2 stories or down 2 stories. Those buildings probably go up 45' or so.
Wonder if the way this ordinance is set up now, if it will still be possible or not
to build into the hill and go up.
Mayor Bernard ~ It is probably a fact that those buildings were probably in vi61ation
of the zoning at the time they were built because they chose to pick the point
from which they measured the height, of the building not acccrding to this.. Wouldn't
Ghat become a metter for a variance ...... :
Tom Benton - Yes anything over 10% grade is a matter of a variance. Access to the
land and your parking could be an interesting point.
Mayor Barnard ~ In answer to your question,:I would say no
Luke Anthony - Does the Council see anything wrong with having a building go up to
40' just as long as they are built back up to the hill. The point of the.height,
I think, is not to hurt anyones view. If it is built into the hill, you know you
are not going to hurt anyones view.
Jerry Brown - We talked about this a lot, as Tom mentioned you can't write a law
with the over 10% recognized. I am concerned about what you are thinking. One the
esthetics of the community, I think that the new Fifth Avenue building is a darn
nice building which is abOut 40'. But I am concerned with vehicle access, to get
into these areas and also safety and fire vehicles and also how high the fire
equipment can go to get people out of there. There are things you can't write a law
to cover. As a Planner it ~ never my intention to put a blanket type. of restriction
on these things. Take these cases of topography which the City hasn't had to now.
We have always had flat land. I think the County feels the same way.
James Moore - On the 200' set back on the highway, you are assuming that there might
be some land out west or east of town that might be annexed to the City when you enter
into this ordinance..~ .~ :~ ~. ~.~ ..
Jerry Brown - Yes, we are sort of looking ahead.
James Moore - I object to that.
Jerry Brown - That 200,' set back only applies to special uses in a residential district
James Moore - Everything other than residences.
Jerry Brown - That is correct. ~ ~
James Moore - Does. the City Council understand that under the present zoning called
for here now, there is not going to be another filling station located in the whole
area above ground level here. There might be some in the C-2 down the hill, but
there will be no filling stations in the proposed uptonw business area other than
if they were connected with a garage or parking.
Councilman Stapleton - Will be honest, I thought they were included up until we read
this tonight.
5'75
........ ~_~gulr Meeting ........... Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Public Hearing Tom Benton - The argument was that now that we are t~y~ng to solve the parking problem
Title XI-zoning for this town, trying to form some sort of parking district to supply parking for the
~,~ business district, it is important that the grgwth especially filling stations is
orderly and they go where we want them to go. So that is the City developes a garage
someplace, it could very well.incorporate a,.filling station with it. Filling station
could very well lease a part of that which would be a good spot for it. If a filling
station came into the center of town where there is no parking facilities, we just
add. another hazard in trying to control the traffic and parking. So it is just a
matter of planning for the growth and trying to solve the traffic problem. The
Master Plan calls for one way traffic on certain streets, if you had a filling
station on the other side of the street, it isn't convenient to exit cars all one
:. way. It would be a disaster to plan it for. traffic flow.
COuncilman Stapleton - What you are saying is the stations that are presently right
up town here, these are the only stations we can have unless they go down over the
hill.
Tom Benton - No absolutely not. If you develop parking lots or parking structures
or facilities it is quite reasonable to lease out for any garage or filling station,
but you would be controlling where they go.
Luke Anthony - What would be wrong with just asking the stations to provide what
you felt was the right amount of parking. That is just what you are doing here isn't
it. If we have already set up a statute that requires what we feel is the right
amount of parking, what is the p=oblem, why make them put in a garage.
Tom Benton - We are trying to solve the parking for the City, not the individual
stations or individual businessnes. What amounts to a solution to a parking problem,
not for a~yone individual.
James Moore - You are trying to say someone is going to come into town and buy
a bulk of land for a couple $100,000 and develop it into a private parking lot for
private enterprise. The City buy it and lease out the morner, do you realize how
much it take to put in a decent filling station, 4 corner lots. Y~ou are going to
lose 4 corner lots to put in a decent filling station. One that could put in
60,000 to ~0,000 gas storage under, safety standards, State of Colorado.
Tom Benton - Of course, it depends on the design whether it is underground above
ground, how it is laid out, how many lots are involved, how high, how 1~o~., it is not
just. a matter of~t~king the surface area and say you are losing 4 lots. Also if a
filling station is going on 4 bare lo,ts, you ha~e, loser those 4 lots to any~ sort of
multiple use.
James Meore - I.~cmrtainly suggest ,you allow the stations, in the C-1 subject to approval
of the zoning board ju~st as it was before. We are going to have to live with this
think for 20 years, I hope.
Jerry Brown - I am in opposition on this thing. I feel that a service station is
really a~commer~ciat industrial oriented use. Ever since I have been here you receive
the feeling, if you don't, we are trying to get this pedestrian oriented character
in our C-1 area. If we allow this cormnercial industrial use it is, I think, a step
in the wrong direction for what we-are trying to achieve.
Mayor Barnard I certainly agree with Tom that we ought to control so far as we
can where these gas stations go. Number one it dosen't seem we are all that short
of gas stations at the moment but if and when~we do get somemore gas stations,
in here, I think we ought to control where they are put.
Jerry Brown - As I walk around as a pedestrian,.I find it more trouble getting around
the corners~that have gas stations~,on the, than the others.
Mayor Barnard - Feel we have gone over this material prety thoroughly, can.we bring
this public hearing to a close.
There being no further comments the hearing was closed byMayor Barnard.
Councilman Stapleton made a motion to approve Ordinance #3, Series 1967 on first
re~ding as read in full~. Seconded by Councilman McEaehern. Roll call vote
Councilmen Clymer aye; Kuster aye; McEachern aye;,Stapl~ton aye.
Councilman Kuster made a motion to approve renewal of the rooming house licenses
i 'Rooming Hous for Guido's Swiss Inn, Josef Herczeg, Coachlight Chalet and the Bunkhaus. Seconded by
Councilman Stapleton. Ail in favor, motion carried.
Letter pertaining to a recommendation on request of Hans Gramiger for rezoning from
Gramiger- the Planning and Zoning Commission was read by Mayor Barnard. Planning and Zoning
request rexonir denied the request.
576
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 6, 1967
Councilman Stapleton made a motion the City Council adopt the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and not rezone Block 52 Lots A, B,~C, D, E Seconded by. Councilman
Clymer. Roll call vote - Councilmen McEachern aye; Stapleton~aye.; Kuster aye;~Clymer
aye.
Galena St, East Liquor Violation - Attorney Gaylord request Council decide if.charges Galena St.
on liquor violation are gOing to-be di.smissed. Councilman Staplegon made a motion East
that the charges'brOught~against~Galena St.~Ea,st for violations of code, selling to r
minirs, be dismissed in lieu of the fact of certain safeguards and standards of I.D.
checking have been implemented. Seconded by Councilman McEachern~ All in favor,
motion carried.
Curb Cut Ordinance - Wurl stated this has not been firmed up, so have nothing to Curb Cut Ord.
report at this time.
Officer Ramon Drehobl- Connc~lman McE chern made a motion that Ramon Drehobl's Officer Drehobl
resignation be refused. Seconded by Councilman Stapleton. Ail in favor, motion
carried.
Fiscal Agent - Street Improvement District ~67-1 - Councilman Stapteton made a motion F~scal Agent
to approve Bernard Tierney as the fiscal agent for Street Improvment District #67-1. #67-1
Seconded by Councilman Kuster. Roll call vote - Councilmen Kuster aye; Stapleton aye;
Clymer aye; McEachern aye.
Bonding Attorney - Street Improvment District #67~1 - Councilman Stapleton made a ~onding Attorney
motion to appoint Bill Lamm of Tallmadge and~Tallmadge as Bonding~Attorney for #67-1
Street Improvement District #67-1. Seconded by Councilman Kuster. Roll call vote -
Councilmen McEachern aye; Kuster aye; Stapleton aye; Clymer aye.
Prospector Passenger Train Meeting - Wurl reported he attended, the meeting in Grand
Junction and outlined to them the adverse effect elimination of the Prospector would Prospector train
have on Aspen.
St. Improvment District ~67-1 - Administrator Wurl reported petitions are: coming, in.
Have one person carrying petitions.
Also contacted Corn COnstruction relating to fi~ing bad sec.tions on Hymen and
Durant, paved in 1966.
Councilman Stapleton made a motion to consider the entize area ~s, proposed as one
district, Street ImproVment Distric~ ~#67-1. Seconded by Councilman Clymer. Roll #67-1 ~,
call vote - Councilmen Clymer aye; Stapleton aye; Kuster aye; McEzchern aye.
Administrator Wurl stated he has had requests from people on Aspen Street and Galena
for paving. This c*ould be done by setting up a Street Improvment District #67-2. #67-2
Could not be included in #67-1 due to proceedings being started. Council agreed to ~t.Improvement
have Administratmr Wurl and City Engineer Roger Mahnke start on ~this.
Snow Removal of Sidewalks - Administrator Wurl reported on the last st.o~m it took Snow Removal
3 hours to remove the snow. After a good snow fall would probably ~take 5 to .6 hours Sidewalks
to do a good job.
Street Paving ~67-1 wnuld include 48 blocks cost approximately $312,000. Citys
participation would be about 27%.
Administrator Wurl reported as per memo received from Chief Scott, Lieutenant Police Dept.
Joseph Day has been redesignated to Sergeamt. ~
Councilman Stapleton request the City Attorney break down the 50 hours as per her C.Attorney
statment. City Attroney stated if less than 15 minutes no charge is made, over bill.
15 minutes charges for 1/2 hour. Councilman Stapleton made.a motion to get a
breakdown on the hours spent for each item on the City Attorneys bill. Seconded by
Councilman Kuster. Ail in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Stapleton made a motion to approve the bills. Seconded by Councilman
McEachern. Roll call vote - Councilmen Clymer aye; Kuster aye; McEachern aye;
Stapleton aye.
Councilman Kuster ~ade a motion to adjourn at 6:45 p.m., seconded by Councilman Stap-
leton. Ail in favor, motion carried, me&ting adjourned.
raine Graves, City Clerk -~