Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740723 FORM 50 C.F.HOECKElB.B.&:l.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular meeting Old Business: HPC Old Business: Institute Property Planning and Zoning duly 23, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Bryan Johnson at 4:09 p.m. with Janet Landry, Robert Barnard, Jack Jenkins and Chick Collins in attendance. Donna Baer, John Stanford and Yank Mojo of the Planning Office were also in attendance. John Stanford reminded the members of the rescheduling of the HPC in the agenda for today and asked for a review of the decision on the adoption of the Historic Districts. Spokesman for the HPC, Lary Groen, stated that the HPC was no informed of the time of the last P & Z meeting, and questioned Commission members on what their reaction to the HPC presentation was and whether they had had a chance to review and question the criteria. Also of great importance was the question of whether the HPC would function as a part of the P & Z. Collins favored HPC but believed that a conflict exists between HPC and Ordinance 9. Barnard stated that the material already sent to the Council in reference to the HPC was self- explanatory in the matter. Johnson said that the P & Z had officially taken no action on the HPC but had simply allowed each member's opinion to be stated. He was in favor of the HPC and he believed Chairman Schiffer was also. Jenkins and Landry both favored the HPC but had reservations concerning the cri teria. Groen suggested a study session with P & Z. He reiterated his concern over P & Z wanting the HPC to be a function of the P & Z and felt that HPC would get little cooperation from property owners if they had to go before the P & Z also. Stanford reminded the Commission of the concern by the HPC over the designation of the districts involved and said that the criteria were based on more of an architectural review. Johnson wanted to schedule a study session but Lary Groen was unable to set a date for the meeting at that time. Chairman Schiffer arrives. Chick Collins asked that the unofficial vote on the property at the Meadows be put on record. Schiffer was against the proposal stating that he didn't want to go with official action since there was no Master Plan produced yet but did favor any action taken to present the members with a plan that could be acted on. Schiffer was opposed to the idea of 300 units built for commercial use at the present time in Aspen. Collins moved that a resolution be passed that the results of the unofficial talks with the owners of the Institute property be put on record. For lack of a second, the motion died. Landry acknowleged that she had missed the presentation so as a matter of record she abstained. She also stated that she had negative feelings because of the impact suggested and felt that the project was inappropriate for the area at this time. FORM 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B.&:l.CO. ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Ordinance 19: Villas Schwartz Duplex: Botanical Eye: Hibberd Duplex: Bob Stevens Annexation: Art Daily again presented to the Commission the four different concepts for the Villa Condominiums. Plans called for two level or three level structures. Mrs. Baer stated that they had changed from a three bedroom concept to the two bedroom but that they were within the downzoning. She urged full setback on Seventh Street. Mrs. Baer's objections were that the Villas should provide another 12 1/2 feet on Seventh since the Highway Department might conceivably need the full 37 1/2 feet for a widening of the Highway. She stated that they also had not provided enough useable common space and advised that unless there was a tradeoff of some kind, the Planning Office couldn't approve the plans. Another point of contention was the trail which was asked for by Planning. She thought that perhaps they could use basement area for underground parking to provide the additional 12 1/2 feet on Seventh. Art Daily stated that Villas had decided to come in under P.U. D. and were willing to go along with the new policies of the City and P & Z in advance of them becoming law. He reminded the members that the State Engineer's Office had only recommenden the additional 12 1/2 feet to keep the options open should the Highway be widened but he added that it was unknown whether this would always be the main road into town. Schiffer asked them to come back after determining the feasibility of changing the plans to give 12 1/2 feet more on the Seventh Street side. Johnson made a motion that they approve a 32 unit, two bedroom multi- family concept. Landry seconded. All in favor with the exception of Collins. Mr. Schwartz explained that he was bringing his mother to live with him and that his house was being set up so that she would have an apartment for herself. He asked for a 35 foot setback instead of the 24 feet he presently is allowed. Barnard made the motion to approve the preliminary and final plans for the Schwartz duplex and Johnson seconded. Vote was unanimously in favor. Since Ms. Brinkman again did not show for her presentation, Chairman Schiffer advised Mrs. Baer not to reschedule it again for the agenda. Schiffer asked if there were any conditions passed on from the Planning Office and Mrs. Baer advised they had none. Johnson moved that approval be given for preliminary and final plans on the Hibberd duplex and seconded by Jenkins with all being in favor. Stevens advised that the City Council had directed him to come before the P & Z and give them an on-site inspection. It was finally decided that the Planning Office should make a study based on the remo passed out by Stevens and also the plans given to the P & Z. Dr. Barnard moved that the meeting be adjourned and Johnson seconded. Tbe meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. -2- X(MMt/~~/ Recording Secre 'ry RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 51 c. F. HOECKEl 8. 9. It l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning July 23, 1974 V E R BAT I M OLD BUSINESS: Institute Property Johnson: Did anyone else have any old business? Collins: Mr. Chairman, I have an item of old business that I would like to bring up once again. In regards to the proposed master plan at the Institute property at the Meadows. We took some unofficial action at the study session about a month ago and at this time I would like to see that become a matter of official record of this Commission. Schiffer: How do you mean? Collins: Well, the results of the straw vote that was taken at that time to give the Institute the go-ahead on the master plan involving some- wheres in the area of a number of five hundred bedroom units. Johnson: It would seem to me that it would be best to incorporate that type of action with the rezoning since it all fits with j;ae~rezoning:j?lan which we are about to have a public hearing on and it just seems to me that taking any kind of action on a study session that we had had this really wouldn't do what we need to do right now. Schiffer: I think, Chick, you were in the minority on that straw vote and I understand your feelings and you want to get this on the record but I think that we would be doing ourselves and the City a disservice by doing that because at the time they came in here, and maybe getting this part on the record is good, but I don't think that we should have a formal vote and bring this thing up to a vote this time becaus, what happened was we came up with our original plan for the property, the Institute property, they came in and said that they couldn't live with it because they had problems with finance. They ah, then Herb said 'what would you like us to do'and they said 'well, we would like you to give us some definite parameters as to what we can or can't do and some definite zoning' and Herb said 'you can't do that until you come back with your revised master plan'. Then they came back and they said 'well, we can't come back with a revised master plan until you tell us whether or not what we want to do is in the ball- park'. So just to get the ball rolling and just to get them started on their master plan so that we can take a look at it before we do any zoning out there, we said 'okay, this is what you want to do, you are within the "ballpark'" and I remember distinctly saying that over and over again that in response to their questions of whether or not they were in the "ballpark". The only commitment that I understood that was being made was to them in respect to the fact that they were within the "ballpark", I think if we take any official action saying that we agreed with what they wanted to do or with respect to the number of units they want to put out there, we are going to be pinned down to that position and this was at a study session and it was that it was a give and take and we were just getting some direct- ion so that they could come back with a master plan. Now I don't take that as any formal action and I don't think that it needs to have any formal action and I think by taking formal action we are then going to be pinned down as to what we can or can't do and if you want to make the straw vote public I'm more than happy to do that and I will say that I voted to say 'yes' that they were within the "ballpark". Now to me that's kind of vague wording and that's how I wanted it to be as far as I'm concerned and everyone else has their own feelings on the things and the only reason I consented was to get the ball rolling to get them to come back with their so-called revised master plan and I never indicated that I would support three -1- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOllMIO C.F.HOECKElB.B.&:l.CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning July 23, 1974 Regular Meeting Schiffer, con'd Collins: Barnard: Collins: Schiffer: Collins: Barnard: Collins: Barnard: Johnson: Collins: hundred additional units out there and I don't think that anyone else intended that at all. Just to say that if you want to build your units, this is where you can put it and that idea is within the ballpark and the number is within the ballpark. But you don't believe me ... As I understand it the action taken that night was essentially one of numbers, that's what the whole thing is about ... not entirely, Chick, not entirely Let me finish, just a minute. Now this a rather significant impact in terms of the projected number of units out there and I feel that and I've seen it happen many times in the past, that you've given the applicant the go-ahead in which he can come in later on and indicate that he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a plan at which time you are going to find it very difficult to change your position, And this has happened time and time again and I don't see, we take official action on anything else. We turn down an impact proposal just last week of less numbers than what we did at the study session and I feel that this is big enough and broad enough especially as they're coming down now to wrap this thing as fa! as rezoning goes. That if you're gonna do it then you better, you should be going on the record with it, and not misleading the appli- cant by saying that there is no reference made to numbers because the numbers were there and the main heart of the thing is to what could you go ahead and develop? I, you know, we did talk about numbers, that's right, and they said that they were looking at a long range plan of ultimately having threE hundred additional units and you it's one thing to say its a long range plan to have three hundred additional units and at the time thif went through my mind and its still going through my mind that three hundred units this year or next year or the year after are not going to be acceptable. I don't think that this is what's good for the City but if you're talking about a ten year plan or a twenty year plan or three hundred more units, that's an entirely different story. And that's why I don't think that we should do anything with respect to numbers now, we can't and I think that when the time comes to adopt the new zoning code, that's the time to come up with it. If they have got their master plan, their master plan shows that they arE going to build those units over the next year or two years, you know, I think they're going to have a serious problem. I think it's great to get this all out on record because I do want to clear that up, theres been a lot of feedback coming to me personally on that quest- ion is 'how can you approvae that many additional units?' which I think is good but I keep on saying we didn't do anything, we told these people that they were within the ballpark and I think that that ought to be really clear. That ought to be in the record, Well, I don't understand how an action can not be an action? It was a study session, you can't take an action. Well, that's what I'm asking, the action taken during the study session should become a matter of official record. I disagree with that. I disagree with it, too, but it seems to me that if Chick wants to make a motion to that effect then he can find out whether or nor... Well, I would move that this Commission put on the record of this meeting the results of the unofficial straw vote that was taken at -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"''' C.F.HOECKElB.8.&:l.Co. Aspen Planning and Zoning July 23, 1974 Regular Meeting Collins, con'd Schiffer: Stanford: Schiffer: Landry: Collins: Schiffer: Collins: the study session. Is there a second? (pause) Motion dies for lack of a second. You know that I think the record is definitely going to reflect what we did at that meeting anyway because of this discussion that we have had and I think that if there is anyone that disagrees with my recollection of what happened, speak up now so we have it on the record. And just to clarify it again, my recollection was that we talked about numbers and talked about placement of units and all we said to them was that 'you are within the ballpark and you can go ahead and work on your master plan now' and that's all we said to them and made no commitment on anything and we can't until we see their master plan. It might be good for the records to mention the Planning Office has done an Ordinance 19 update of the Ordinance 19 map for the planning in that section of the city, the jist of which should be an imput to their master plan which we haven't see yet, we may not have seen it, but it sticks to the planning on which the (unintelligible), I would be glad to present that to you if you are interested. Well, I don't think that we need to take a look at it now. I would be willing to add to this discussion that I missed the presen tation that the Institute offered and therefore abstain from the voting because I felt as if I didn't know but since I have investi- gated and I,at that point, I was on jury duty, my feeling is that I have negative feelings toward the impact of the proposal and I would like for that to be on record that I felt that the impact suggested even over a long range period seems to me to be inappropriate for that area. If I may, one, just comment. I just feel that this is a very signif- icant impact proposal of the highest order of anything that you have seen in this town for some time and we can sit here and take the time here on official action for much smaller projects and for this appli- cant to come in in the middle of a study session to and go over a very nebulous plan and look for some sort of reassurance in terms of total density, no comment as far as phasing or scheduling the cons- truction program to indicate that this could be commerical oriented units during certain times of the year to me is important enought thai it deserves more than the consideration that takes place in the study session. Well, Chick, if they were coming in for Ordinance 19 conceptual approval, subdivision, P.U.D. or anything else that requires official action or rezoning, we would have taken official action, But since they came in to get some imput so that they could do a master plan I don't see it that way and I think that anything we do other than what we did do would maybe lead them in the wrong way or lead the public to believe something other than what had occurred and that's why I'll stand on that and I think it was a good thing to have a study session and have them come in and get them to do this master plan. We hear talk about their master plan all the time, this was an incentive for them to go, an iniative, for them to go do it and and nothing else and you know the two phrases that we kept on hearing they kept on throwing out critical mass and we kept talking about ballpark and that sticks in my mind and all they got was a ballpark idea of what they could do. Mr. Chairman, he also indicated a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be expended in developing a plan and they wanted some direction from this body in which to go before they expended tha kind of money and I think they got that direction and I think it was premature that they are actually looking at, they've got some of the -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM\{) C. F. HOECKEl II. 9. 8: l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning July 23, 1974 Regular Meeting Collins, con'd Barnard: Johnson: Barnard: Johnson: money, to prepare a master plan and they possibly have spent ... Mr. Chairman, I think we are belaboring the point here. Well, I think Chick has a real concern... Well, all right, he's made a motion that didn't get a second, now what do you want to do next? I agree with you, I think he has a real concern but it is time to go on to something else. -4-