Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930803 ~ ~ . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 1993 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Jake ViCkery, Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Jasmine Tygre was absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger Hunt: I am wondering why the ice rink that is being built is not the ice rink that went through our approval. Kim: In what way? Roger: #1, the level or the height of the ice rink. When it went through us it was supposed to be down by about 3 feet. Kim: I don't know if there were any changes from P&Z's recommendation before final. Roger: I consider that a here and what went on. courtesy of looking at a through final. major difference from what was approved And we should have at least had the major change like that before it went Bruce: It doesn't appear to be as far into the ground as I remember. Roger: It was sunken at least 3 feet and maybe 4 or 5 feet. Right now it is level from the curb. That is not the way it was supposed to be. And when there is that great a disparity, it should get caught and at least the P&Z should be cognizant of what is going on. Kim: I will tell Diane and ask her to make some kind of update for you as to what happened. Roger: What has happened here is it has raised the building by whatever---So I am irked by this. We should have the Building Dept check into it and see if they are in compliance with approvals. staff said they would check on this and get a report back to P&Z. Sara: What happened to the moving of the Dolle/Benedict house to the Benedict building? I know it was demolished. _cO Kim: That had to be dropped after P&Z saw the proposal because the findings of Art Mears, the avalanche expert was that that particular structure moved on, log built, could not be protected from what he thought the risks were on that particular site. So what the 10th Mountain decided early on was to drop that from the .. application from the Benedict SPA and they knew that they would ultimately come back with a site-built structure which would meet all the requirements for avalanche control. Sara: I have asked for over a year that we have a zoning map permanently displayed in this room. Kim: We are working on that. In a couple of weeks we will have that for you. It was decided to move the Meadows hearing to some date in September to be decided by staff. Bruce then introduced new P&Z member Jake Vickery and welcomed him to the Board. MOTION Roger: I make a motion to direct staff to prepare one of the usual tongue-in-cheek resolutions lauding Richard Compton for his services on P&Z. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS Kim told members that on August 17 they will be hearing a referral '., item on Aspen HighlandS. A representative from Highlands will be making a full presentation of the project to the Pitkin County Planning commission. Members of City P&Z are invited to hear that presentation which will be held from 11: 00 to 2: 00 in council Chambers. Lunch will be provided. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES APRIL 6. JUNE 1 AND JUNE 22. 1993 MOTION Roger made a motion to approve these minutes. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. SURVEY MONUMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION 939 EAST HYMAN Bruce opened the public hearing. 2 PZM8.3.93 ,........,....... MOTION Roger: I move to continue this public hearing and table action to date certain of September 7, 1993. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS DISCUSSION CONDOMINIUMIZATION (continued) Francis Krizmanich did presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Bruce: I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to date certain of August 17, 1993 when this will be a public hearing. Tim: I so move. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE Cindy Houben made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: Bruce: I encourage us to proceed cautiously using the analogy that we don't do something that makes it worse and that exacerbates some of the very problems that we all want solved. We know that there are properties in town that don't make us feel good when we look at them. But what makes you feel bad, I may think is kind of neat. And I think back 100 years ago I wonder if when they built these little miner's cottages if they thought about things like setbacks and FAR. They just got built. They just got thrown in here. And those are the things that we now find charming. I just would caution us and urge us to not try to be over- regulatory. Sure we want to preserve Aspen and we want it to be nice and we want people to build nice houses and we don't want it to be all cluttered up and have this oppressive kind of feel. But let's don't over-regulate. We may create the very problem that we may in fact make land more scarce and more valuable and as we restrict how much can go on a piece of land--we have only got so much land in this valley and the more we restrict what size boxes we can put on there the land just goes away that much faster 3 PZM8.3.93 .."'....,"'... forcing more things to be down valley and developed down valley. We really need to think about whatever we do up here and is it going to have impact beyond just what that house on that lot looks like to us. '"- I share the concern about some of the properties we have got in town and how they look--the bulk of them and all of that. I am saying let's be cautious. When we tell someone that they can only do a certain thing with their property we must be sure the regulations are founded upon the health, safety and welfare of the overall community and that we don't get into confiscatory kinds of situations. Just because something doesn't look good and doesn't feel good to me may not have anything to do with the health, safety and welfare of the people of Aspen. So we have got to be sure that when we change bulk requirements or FAR requirements or whatever it is that it is not just arbitrary that there is some rational basis for us saying "Yes the bulk can only be X and FAR can only be Y and these are the reasons why". What I am suggesting to us is that we can define the bulk however we want to and they can only build so much bulk on X number of square feet. But what I am saying is that somebody who wants a whatever size house and they want it in Aspen they are still going to get that house. If it means they have to buy 2 or 3 more lots they are going to do it. It may mean that it makes us feel better to look at that house but that land gone. It is taken out of our inventory. So I am saying that there are these ripple kinds of effects that we haven't even thought about. We may be eliminating 2 lots that were a potential for another house and the rich mega-millionaire has still got his house and it looks OK to us because now we have got these setbacks and it is not too big for this big lot but we have taken land away from Aspen that can't be used for anything else anymore. So we have got to think about all of these kinds of things when we make these regulations. There being no further discussion--meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15 P.M. Clerk 4 PZM8.3.93