Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740115 -- , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOI':CKEL8.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:10 p.m. with Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer and Geri Vagneur. Al- so present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Schiffer made a motion to approve the minutes of December 18, 1973, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Election of Acting Chairman & Vice Chairman Gillis stated the Commission needed to elect and Act- ing Chairman and Vice Chairman to last until June. Schiffer nominated Gillis to continue as Acting Chair- man of the Commission. Seconded by Johnson. Vagneur nominated Schiffer as Acting Chairman, seconded by Jenkins. Vidal made a motion to close the nominations close. Schiffer stated that he would like to decline, since he felt that he had not been on the Commission long enough to serve as Chairman. Gillis elected Acting Chairman of the Commission u- nanimously. Vagneur nomated Schiffer for Vice Chairman of the Com- mission, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. Planning & Zoning Commission By-Laws Gillis questioned the Commission on whether or not they had had a chance to review the proposed by-laws. Bartel stated that it would only be the first two pages of the by-laws which actually apply to the Commission and stated that the rest was Robert's Rules of Order, which apply to all boards and commissions in the City. Johnson pointed out that Section 4 specified that the City Clerk would be the secretary of the Commission. Johnson suggested the Commission amend the by-laws to read "The City Clerk of the City of Aspen or the Deputy City Clerk shall be the secretary of the Plan- ning Commission..." Johnson made a motion to approve the by-laws as amended, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor,motion carried. Grant-In-Aid Application Letter Bartel stated that the purpose of this letter was to complete the file for the County's application for open space. Stated that the County has prepared an application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to ac- quire approximately 21 acres of the Thomas property for open space purposes adjacent to the land the City has purchased. Bartel submitted maps showing the area concerned. Bartel stated that the procedure was for both Planning and zoning Commissions to comment. It will go to the regional agency, regional 12, for comment. Then it will go to the State Planning Office. The State Divi- sion of Parks will make its decision on the application in April. If they approve it and receive Federal funds, sometime after the fiscal year '74, the County could go ahead with the purchase of that portion of the pro- -- "'""" , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORiII~' C. r. H OECJ<;EL B. B. Ii L. ~O. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 perty. Stated that it is a letter of both City and County Plannning & zoning Commission's support of the Grant-in-Aid application. Pointed out that it does not include the actual hospital site itself. Schiffer made a motion for the Chairman to sign the letter of support of the Grant-in-Aid application. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING View Control Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on view control. Bartel submitted slides on view control. Stated that they were somewhat different than the slides shown in the study session held in November. Stated that the Commission had requested not to hold the public hearing until after the first of the year. First aerial photograph showed all of the locations with the exception of Glory Hole Park from which the view corridors have been proposed. Second slide was a telephoto shot from Glory which is the one completed by City Council. that was done in May of '73. Hole Park, Stated Bartel stated that the Planning Office proposed that the building heights be set so that elevations of the buildings would not exceed the lines indicated on the photographs. Next slide showed the second location, which had also been acted on by the Planning & zoning commission in June of '73, Main Street corridor, near the Hotel Jer- ome. Bartel stated the inventory for view preservation was done in 1971. Bartel stated that on all of the slides with lines across the screen, the lower line is the line proposed for preservation of the view plane, and the upper line is the line of building heights allowed by the present Code. Next slide was the view corridor of Wagner Park, also acted on in June of 1973. Bartel pointed out that also proposed was a view cor- ridor of Independence Pass from the southwest corner of Rubey Park. Stated that this also was recommended by the P & Z. The City Council scheduled a public hearing, but that public hearing was not held so that the Planning & zoning Commission could reconsider this particular recommendation of the Planning Office. Next slide, which had not been acted on by the P & Z, was the view corridor from the Courthouse steps. Following slide was the view corridor from the open area east of the Courthouse. Stated that on this par- ticular slide, the existing building height allowable was not shown, but stated that it would totally block the existing view of Aspen Mountain. -2- ,.. "'""" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM;O C.F,HOHKEla.B.81 L,CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Bartel stated that one of the areas which the Planning Office was interested in preserving views in 1971 was the view of Independence Pass from the open lot just to the east of the Courthouse. Stated that since that time, the view is gone. Stated that this was an ex- ample of what is happening and why it is important for the Planning & Zoning Commission to make a decision on the question of view preservation. Next slide showed the view from Cooper Street where the building was moved out on the land belonging to the Ski Corps. Bartel stated that the Wheeler Opera House is also pro- posed for view preservation. Pointed out that the Wheeler Opera House is on the register for historic places in the City. Stated that last year $30,000 was spent on restoration for two sides of the Wheeler. Have estimated for the exterior only approximately an additional $60,000 for historic restoration. Showed slide with view proposal. Bartel stated that on the Wheeler Opera House view corridor, we have not only a view out to the Mountain, but also a view from Wagner Park back to the Historic Landmark, and obviously the view preservation program would not maintain that lot as an open field, but it would retain the significance of the Wheeler Opera House as a landmark structure. Next slide showed a proposed view corridor from the Cooper Street mall area looking toward Aspen Mountain. Next slide was approximately the same area, but a dif- ferent block, Durant Street, an example of what the building heights do as far as the view of Aspen Moun- tain is concerned. Stated that this is not included in the view preservation program, but is included as an example of what the Planning Office thinks the con- siderations are to maintain views. Wagner Park, with a view of Independence Pass, is shown on the Ordinance #19 map. Stated that the building has been removed, so we have at this location a similar situation to Glory Hole Park where the view has been preserved. Bartel stated that there are many other locations which were included in the inventory in which specific pre- servation techniques are not needed and panoramic views are assured because of public ownership, such as the view of Aspen Mountain from wagner Park, the view of Aspen Mountain from the library, and the views up the streets. Stated that the point is that the planning Office is not trying to preserve only one type of view. Concerned with views up the street, concerned with slot views between buildings, concerned with panorama views from the parks, such as Paepcke Park and Wagner Park. Chairman Gillis stated that he would prefer not to consider the two Rubey Park views in the discussion at this meeting. Bartel pointed out that the Planning Office had handed -3- ,.. """" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM', C. F. HOECKEl B. S.& L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 out a memo at the last meeting explaining why the Plan- ning Office thought that this was important, what the design considerations were. Further stated that the planning Office, in addition to the memo, has a file of some 20 exhibits which represent the work which represent the work which has been done to date on view preservation. Bartel stated that, with respect to the Planning Office position, is that the first consideration is a Plan- ning one, and the Planning Office does not present a proposal to the P & Z without showing it to the City's legal counsel first. Bartel stated that he would not want to eliminate any of these view considerations at this point by Planning Office decision. Feel that if they are eliminated because of political considerations or because of legal considerations, that would be ok. Stated that all of these view corridors were shown on the Ordinance #19 map. Bartel stated that one of the considerations at the time of Ordinance #19 was to compile current plans and Planning Office work, so the Planning Office has included the Greenway Plan, the trail plan, the view preservation plan, etc... Schiffer questioned Bartel on why the Planning Office had decided to opt for amendment of the zoning ordi- nance rather than the purchase of view easements that were recommended in the report given to the Commission. Bartel stated that the original work that was done by Adam Kravatsky and himself and the working maps which are included in the 20-some exhibits, proposed view corridors from a full range of places within the City, many of which were private places. Stated that the Planning Office felt that the proposals should be made only from public places and that the reference to the purchase of easements, at least for Planning purposes, does not apply to the public places that are used for focal points. Stated that in addition to that, on each of the public places, they were selected because of public investment or because of the concentration of tourist activity or because they playa particularly important function in maintaining Aspen's character, keeping the countryside visible, giving the impression of smallness. Stated that it is his position, as a planning matter, purchase is not necessary. Stated that the City Attorney has the final word in that mat- ter. Vidal requested that Bartel elaborate on the difference between a view corridor from a public place as opposed to a view corridor from a private place in terms of whether it should be purchased or not. Bartel stated that he felt that on a private place, using an example, would be something like the view of Aspen Mountain from the La Cocina restaurant. Would not really be a place where there is a justification of expenditure of public dollars. Pointed out that the other extreme, a public place, Rubey Park for ex- ample, $400,000 in the purchase of the land and the transportation and park planning really uses that as -4- ,.. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HoJeCKELB.a.IIL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 one of the focal points for the downtown area. Vidal questioned the justification for payment of the view corridor from that place. Questioned if the Planning Office felt that if there is a significant public investment in one place that the issue of the view corridor and paying for that is not the same as if you were creating a view for a private location. Bartel stated that he felt the public investment was a very important part of it, but felt the other part is to maintain the character and the quality from public places. Vidal questioned Bartel on whether or not there is a difference between public and private places as to whether or not they should be paid for. Bartel stated that if the City got into establishing view corridors from private places there would be no end to it. Gillis questioned Bartel on how the Planning Office justified having a view corridor from the Wheeler which belongs to Mr. Shell. Bartel stated that the City has placed that building on the register for Historic places. The lot is as much of the setting of the Wheeler as the buidling itself. The expenditure for purchase of the building, the expenditure for restoration of the building all have some overlap to the adjacent property. The City also, one day, would like to acquire that land. Vidal stated that he agreed with the justification for not paying for any view corridors for private land. Stated he still did not understand the justification for not paying for view corridors from public lands. Bartel stated that he felt that just as zoning has its primary responsiblity the protection of environmental qualities, it also has as its responsiblity the pro- tection of character, quality, setting, and, in this case, those design elements are all important for the tourist economy, which the zoning also has a respon- sibility to foster. Vagneur ~ated that she had a problem with Cooper Street, Stated that the Commission had recommended to Mr. Mar- cus that he acquire the rest of that City block if he could to do a half-block development. If that, at the end of that block is allowed to be 35' high, and that is the limitation from that corridor, how could the Commission in good faith ask him to do what the Com- mission had recommended. Bartel stated that the ordinance that was handed out at the last meeting, not only proposed these corridors, but also proposed an amendment to the view preservation section of the zoning code which says that the areas falling within these corridors are subject to PUD pro- visions so that the Commission may vary the heights of buildings, may vary open space requirements, may vary lot areas through the PUD process so that the provision -5- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.6.1I:l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 is there for the flexibility. Further stated that the Commission may waive those PUD requirements, and that was put in specifically so that if the applicant de- monstrates that he's taken all those things into con- sideration, that he does not have to deal with all of the time-consuming PUD provisions, and proceeds on with the next step, provided that the P & Z makes that exception. Schiffer request Bartel explain to the audience exac- tly what the specific numeric designations on the map meant. Bartel explained that within any view corridor, the building height increase with increasing distance from the focal point. Above the elevation of the focal point the building heights vary - stated that the elevations on the map were approximate. Vidal questioned if the degree of inclination was the same for all of the planes. Bartel stated that it was not. Each has a separate legal description which describes the extent of the area covered and the angle involved. Ken Hubbard, attorney from Holland and Hart, was pre- sent representing Aspen Skiing Corporation, which has some land in Block 90 which would be affected, and also on behalf of Attorney Jim Moran representing Curt Chase. Hubbard stated that he felt, from the previous cor- respondence when they went through the Hotel Jerome view plane ordinance on the Bergman application, that the Commission would have a good idea as to what their position would be on the matter. Basically, they feel that the land owner owns the air space above his land and the Commission is telling him that he can't build as high as his neighbor in the same zoning classifi- cation in order that the public can enjoy these views. Hubbard stated that he felt that in a sense, the City would be taking his property, and the proposed ordi- nance purports to be an amendment to the zoning Code, so it would be part of the police power rather than a taking. Felt that even putting all the view planes into one ordinance, it does not affect everyone within a zoning classification uniformly. Hubbard stated, that as one author has stated, the most common test for a taking is whether the act is designed to benefit the public or to prevent harm, and if it's the former, to benefit the public, it is a taking. Hubbard also questioned whether the requirement that affected lands be considered under PUD prevents the act from being treated as a taking. Hubbard stated that there is no assurance under an or- dinance like this that there would be any concessions. Hubbard referred to the language in the Colorado Constitution which states in Article II, Section 15, "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for -6- I""' --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'c, C. F.HOHKEL B. B.a L co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 public or private use without just compensation." Stated that he felt the landowners that are affected by an ordinance like this are incurring damage to their property for the benefit of the public. Stated that they have found no cases which involve a view cor- ridor ordinance, but stated that there are cases which uphold scenic easement laws for the very reason that they do provide compensation. Hubbard further sited the analogy of the Airport Height Restriction cases, mentioned by Moran in his letter to the Commission, which have gone up to the U.S. Supreme Court and have been decided in favor of the affected landowners. Hubbard stated that he thought there were possible questions on the adequacy of the notice given and cer- tain ambiguities in the ordinance and the maps, and also the basic question of whether the ordinance can really be understood by most of the people affected. Hubbard suggest that the Commission approach the land- owners the way you would in a condemnation case and negotiate with them before the ordinance goes into affect. Gillis stated that he felt that would be an initiative from the City Council rather than the Commission, and stated that this was purely a planning decision and not a legal question. Hubbard stated that if the Commission felt that that idea had any merit, a recommendation from the Commis- sion to the City Council would have an affect on their decision. A member of the public questioned the Commission as to whether or not the Commission had the intent to take any legal considerations in their decision. Gillis stated that he felt it should not be. Vidal stated that he felt the Commission could respon- sibly act with its eyes closed in total to other ele- ments. Stated that he felt the variety of considera- tions, both legal and planning, could not be easily separated. Vidal stated he felt it would be highly valuable for the Commission to have information to the contrary, that is, that the view corridors were not a taking. Michael Kinsley was present, representing the Environ- mental Task Force, and stated that he felt it would be appropriate for the City Attorney to have a reply to the argument on the taking. Vidal stated that he did not feel that the Commission's decisions relative to those kind of issues should be postponed until you get into Court and then find out whether or not it is legal. Kinsley stated that from his point of view, he did not feel the establishment of view corridors would be con- -7- - --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '3 C. F. fIOECKE~ B. B. III L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 15, 1974 sidered a taking. Gillis reminded the Commission that Bartel had stated that this had gone through the City Attorney and has passed with her approval. A member of the public questioned Bartel how you could tell by looking at the map where the lines end. Bartel stated that by looking at the map, you really could not tell, because that line projected can in- tersect the mountain at some point. Bartel explained that on the map there are two dis- tances shown: (1) the distance from the focal point; (2) the approximate building height at that distance from the focal point. A member of the Architects' Collaborative submitted a letter to the Commission. Stated that they agree that the study of view planes is an important item for the City. Stated that the most important item that affects the building on the land happens to be a view corridor, and there has been no other item that has been taken into account when you develope a piece of land. Stated that if such legislation goes through, it states that the view corridor will affect the height of the buildings and nothing else will affect the height. Questioned if there should be some type of plan behind this view plane proposal, of which the view plane ordinance is a part, rather than making the view ordinance a separate entity that will control all of the development of this land. Stated that the Collaborative believes that there should be a method by which a developer of lands in these affected areas can make some sort of trade-off with the City, if he can show that his land can be developed in such a way that the view plane can go through and still preserve the view. Stated that the view plane establishes a rather rigid method of building. Stated that it will give the developer a lot of problems and will not give the City a good building. Bartel answered those questions by reading the Section of the view plane program that includes the amendment to the zoning code itself. "When any view plane, here and above estab- lished, projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height to below that otherwise provided in this Code, all developments of the area so affected shall proceed according to the provisions of (PUD Section) so as to afford maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration of building bulk and height and open and ped- estrian space, and similarly, to permit vari- ations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, including view plane height limitations, provided, however, that the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission may exempt an ap- plication from the requirements when any pro- posed development satisfies the building de- sign requirements above enumerated." -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. tWECKEL B. 3. !Ie L ~O. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Bartel stated that he felt the Planning Office's in- tent was not to say that we want to design buildings automatically within these colored areas of the maps. Stated that he felt the challenge was available to the landowner and to the architect to see what they can do within these basis, and that is included as a spe- cific amendment as part of the program. Bartel further stated that the intent of the building permit review process was to enable the Commission to further study to prepare amendments to the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map, of which this is one. A member of the public stated that he felt the Com- mission would not be taking into account all the other items which affect a piece of property. Bartel stated that the Planning Office concern was that the view corridor, once lost, is not likely to reappear. Further stated that the City does not at this time have a whole design plan, but has the view preservation element of one and the historic preser- vation element is one that is also in process. The mall element is in process. Feel the whole question of the bulk, scale, height of buildings is a separate matter. May find that the City can adopt specific height, bulk regulations at a later date, but at this point, this is the best the Planning Office has to of- fer. A member of the public stated that the uniformity of building heights, he felt, was not good. Stated that he felt the City could have some high-rise buildings if they regulated that with open space at the ground area. Stated he could see no reason why there could not be some high-rise buildings penetrating the view planes and yet still maintain the view planes. Kinsley stated that the community has stated very clearly three times in the last 16 months that they want to control growth and this is an element of that. Stated that the Environmental Task Force is voting unanimously to support this proposal. Kinsley then read a brief statement from the ETF: "This action is essential to preserving the character of our mountain community. The pres- sure to develope Aspen properties to maximum height will eventually create the canyon-syn- drome found in most cities. In Aspen the can- yons would be three and four stories deep. At that point, Aspen would become a truly urban experience. Our mountains would become ob- scured from our view. We feel that view pre- servation is a valid public purpose, consis- tent with community needs. We feel that it is appropriate for the City of Aspen to exer- cise this police power for the public welfare, and that to discourage this ordinance would create a potential harm to the character of Aspen, which is essential for its survival as a resort community, and we support it." -9- - '"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.KOECKELe.B.&L,CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Another member of the public stated that he was in favor of the view ordinance, but it seems to him that the way that they are layed out, there will be some parcels within these view ordinances that will bear the brunt of the damage or the taking. Feels that it is unfair to have a taking of these parcels and make certain individuals bear the brunt of the cost of the paying of these view corridors for the public benefit. Should be some way that the public at-large pays for the benefit that they will receive. Jenkins stated that with negotiation and understand- ing of the problems on both sides, feels it is not impossible to work out a solution. Sited Bergman's building and the compromise that was worked out. Jenkins further stated that the Commission had the basis of some working agreements that could be in- cluded in the zoning after Ordinance #19. Schiffer stated that he felt the legal considerations were really relevant. Kinsley stated he felt there was a need for the City to rebutt some of the points that had been made at this meeting. City Attorney Sandra Stuller explained that when this matter first came up to consideration, it was last April. Stated that a great deal of research had been done, and again pointed out, there are absolutely no cases in point of view planes and the taking issue. Stated that she had gone to Denver, and Denver also has a view plane ordinance shooting various view planes over highly dense or commercial areas in the city from public areas. Stated that there was one challenge to the view planes on appeal. The exact taking issue was not discussed. Stated that it went up on a building permit question that was a fairly mundane issue at that time. Ms. Stuller stated that her problem as City Attorney, is that the Commission is not really being posited with legal questions here. What is being offered to the Commission are summary legal propositions which the commission, as laymen, can rebutt. Pointed out that it is a matter of degree: how public the nature of the taking is versus how private the burden is. Every time you pass a zoning ordinance you are taking someone's land and their right to develope it the way they want to. Ms. Stuller stated that the second level of consider- ation is the offer Hubbard made to talk about cases. Stated that she could not talk to the Commission about cases she was not prepared to do that at this point and felt that the Commission was not prepared to do that at this point either. Ms. Stuller stated that the third level of consider- ation is whether or not the City Attorney could give the Commission a point blank yes-or-no, it's legal or not legal to each specific view plane as it's platted for the Commission's consideration at this meeting. -10- I""' '"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOECKELB.8.& L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Stated that nobody could do that. Ms. Stuller pointed out that evertime you set up a review procedure, you are exchanging consistency and predictability for flexibility. Ms. Stuller stated that she felt the elements that will be taken into consideration if anything is liti- gated is how public the nature of the viewing area is. How important and how unique is the viewed area, and what are the possibilities of compensating people in the interim. Stated that the Planning Office has tried to concentrate the view planes from highly public areas because they are heavily trafficed, it's important that the City preserve its investment in these public areas, etc... Tried to preserve views that were unique. Concerning preserving the views from public places ver- sus private places. Stated that in the latter situ- ation, you are causing a loss to one private enter- prise for the benefit of another private enterprise. The public element is not there. Bartel explained that one consideration was that the City boundary is such that where some situations oc- cur, the City will not have jurisdiction. Ms. Stuller stated that, as Bartel stated, all these things come through her office first, and extensive research was done on the legitimacy of the question. Stated that the City was going to try to make these as amenable as possible. Stated that she was con- vinced that the premise was legitimate. Hubbard stated that he felt the odds were more in favor of this being considered a taking than not, and if that is the situation, why not, then, con- sider alternatives, and the alternative he suggested was negotiating with affected landowners in advance. Ms. Stuller stated that the Council, if they really felt someone was being heavily burdened by a view plane, would not even worry that much about an at- tack on the ordinance, but would really like to hear the applicant and his proposition and negotiate for pay. Further pointed out that the taking question, you do not lose your right to compensation for taking after the ordinance. Ms. Stuller stated that she felt another point is that any action that the P & Z would take at this point would just put the ordinance in a hole for a year. Ordinance enactment would be another process, and may- be the City Council should actively seek each of the landowners that we can anticipate are going to be seriously affected and see if they have any concerns at this time. Pete Stone was present, and stated that he felt that he was more affected than anyone else in Aspen.Stated that they were in the middle of a decision concerning -11- I""' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.!Il.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 15, 1974 the purchase of three more lots that would be affected by a view corridor. Ms. Stuller pointed out that in the appeals that they review, there is a possibility that one could be exem- pted from the view plane established. Pete Stone request the City Attorney to offer some jus- tification for this confiscation of land. Ms. Stuller stated that the justifications are politi- cal, etc. Stated that as for the legal theory, as for the most part, it is a weighing. Further reminded Stone that the Council is the only body that can nego- tiate for compensation. Assistant Engineer Ed Del Duca pointed out that the view planes were also of some benefit to those affected by it, since their views would also be protected by the view planes. Vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing. Vidal pointed out that in the Commission's and the staff's program was an attempt to get the Architects' Collaborative to address themselves to the massing problem of the core area. Stated that the necessary tools are in existence right now to address themselves to the view corridors. Would like to take a view cor- ridor map and have the P & Z establish it as a policy in the Ordinance #19 review, that the Commission would consider these elements and maintain these views, at the same time, suggest that maybe there is no rush to implement this right away. Vidal stated that he did not feel that the view plane consideration should be taken by itself. Felt it should be in context with the whole massing analysis. Bartel stated that at a previous meeting when the Ute Avenue area was under consideration, the Planning Of- fice tried to make the point that they have priorities, some of which are geographical while others include such things as the rewriting of the Zoning Code, a new zoning map, etc... Stated that he felt it would be better to proceed with these on a one-by-one basis so that they are not suddenly giving the public a mass of proposals and land use considerations to digest at the end of the Ordinance #19 period. Bartel further stated that the Commission now has, un- der Ordinance #19, the opportunity to consider views. Feel that if the Commission hopes to enter into dis- cussions on trade-offs with landowners, that they can not wait until the end or the Ordinance #19 period to do that since they will be talking about some very specialized design considerations, one of which is historic zoning as well as a new zoning map and new zoning text for the entire county. Stated that it is his position that as the information is completed by the Planning Office, it should be presented to the P & Z, the P & Z should act on it if they wish. vidal stated that he still could not see the necessity for rushing this. -12- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM;~ C. F, H OECKEL B. 6. II l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Bartel stated that he did not feel the project had been hurried. Stated that he work had been done in '71, and that much work had been done on it since then. Vagneur stated that it was her interpretation that the commission was voting on or recommending to the Council that we approve all of the view plane corridors at this time, with the exception of the ones that have already been acted on. Bartel stated that the view corridors that the P & Z has not acted on included: (1) the two from the court- house; (2) the Wheeler Opera House; (3) Wagner Park; and (4) the Cooper Street Mall proposed exemption. Vagneur stated that she could not recommend the Wheeler Opera House for the reason that part of it is based on the ownership of private land. Bartel stated that it was basically the same concept that existed on Main Street. Stated that it was real- ly the public place, the street and the sidewalk when they talk about the land adjacent to the Wheeler. Stated that the Commission could consider them on an individual basis. Bartel stated that the first considerations is the amendment to the zoning code, the PUD provision. The second consideration would be the view planes recom- mended. Johnson stated that he supported the view planes and felt that they were an important enough consideration for the entire community that they are worth saving. Jenkins stated that he, too, supported the view planes. Would like to make very positive point that the Com- mission include in the final zoning procedure after Ordinance #19 is that the Commission is capable of giving consideration to particular locations and par- ticular sites that warrant that consideration. Schiffer stated that he, too, agreed with the principle but feels there are very relevant legal considerations. Stated that he felt there were probably alternative ways to do the same thing in a more equitable way. Stated he would like to see a recommendation to the Council to approve this conditioned on their directing the City Attorney to make an extensive legal investi- gation to insure that the City is not doing something that they should not, legally. Realize that there are probalby very relevant considerations concerning taking of private property, and that troubles him. Johnson made a moiton to recommend to City Council the doption of the view plane ordinance. Seconded by Jen- kins. Bartel stated that procedurally he would like to see the Commission direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution recommending them, which the Planning Of- fice would bing back for reconsideration by the Com- mission. -13- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM't C. F. HOECKEL B. a. II l. ~O. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Janaury 15, 1974 Shciffer stated that he would approve this subject to the condition that the Council first require that the City Attorney make a thorough, lengthy investigation as to legal issues involved, present that in brief form, and the Council make a determination after they have that input. . Main Mort.on Roll call vote - Schiffer, nay; Jenkins, aye; Johnson, aye; Vagnuer, nay; Vidal, nay. Motion NOT carried. Jenkins made a motion that the previous motion be a- mended to include the request that the City Council have the City Attorney make an extensive investigation to re-affirm her position on the matter and make that presentation to the Council at the time that this reso- lution is presented to them. Seconded by Vidal. Roll call vote - Schiffer, aye; Jenkins, aye; Johnson, aye; Vagneur, nay; Vidal, nay. Motion carried. Concept Plan for ll~ Acre Rio Grande Property Bartel stated that the planning Office had prepared the concept plan for the ll~ acres of the Rio Grande Property, and stated that before they put it up for public reaction, the Planning Office wanted to submit it to the Commission. Further stated that since the meeting will probably be continued until Thursday, perhaps the Commission would like the Planning Office to make its study ses- sion presentation of the site plan for the Rio Grande Property on Thursday. Schiffer questioned what to do about the Ute Village Condominiums since a decision must be made at this meeting. Ms. Baer pointed out that the people representing the Third Generation project were from out of town, so request that their presentation be allowed for this meeting. Commission agreed to hold a study session on the Rio Grande Property on Thursday and also to continue this meeting until Thursday. Ute Village request a continuation to the February 5th meeting, both Ordinance #19 and Subdivision. Hoping to see Planning Office recommendations before the hear- ing. Ms. Baer pointed out that the agenda for February 5th was a full agenda. Commission and applicant agreed to continue the Ute Village request for conceptual approval and preliminary plat to February 7th. Third Generation Building - Conceptual Presentation Johnson made a motion to continue the meeting, with the exception of this presentation, until Thursday, January 17th at 5:30 p.m. Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Study session was scheduled for Thursday, January 17th, at 4:30 p.m. for the ll~ acre Rio Grande Property. Applicant explained that they were before the Commis- -14- --""'~~" "-.-,, ..,._-_.._,..~ ,,-'-'~-""-' - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM". C.F.IIOECKEL8.8.Il:L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 sion both under Ordinanae #19. Vagnuer stated that she was withdrawing from the Com- mission for this presentation due to conflict of in- terest, stated that she had sold the applicant the property and advised them what to put on the property. Ms. Baer stated that the site of the proposed project was at Hunter and Hyman. Stated that presently on the site is the little red nursery. Stated that it is on 4,500 square feet of lot. It is a commercial use. Neil Pitman, applicant for the project, submitted pro- posed plan to the Commission. Stated that they would be set back 10' from the property line for the open space, running the entire length of the lot (l~ lots). Stated that this would be 28.8% open space. Further stated that the total square footage of the building would be 6746 square feet, made up of three retail spaces. Pitman stated that the applicant, as interior design- ers, plan to locate in one space of the building, which will have a balcony up above. Stated that one of the other spaces would be occupied by a men's clothing store. Stated there would be a public patio of open space, which adds to the amount of open space. Stated that the third space had not been leased. Pitman stated that they have complied with the height regulation and preserving the view of Aspen Mountain. Feel that this project would be a great improvement to Aspen. Stated that this area has not been recom- mended by the Historical Preservation commission for historical designation. Jenkins stated that as long as the uses comply with the C-C uses, who rents the spaces is academic any- way. Pitman stated that the applicant is willing to go along with whatever the parking regulations in the C-C dis- trict turn out to be. Would agree to purchase parking from the City. Ms. Baer stated that presently the parking requirement is one space per thousand square feet. Stated that the way the City has been doing it since the law suit, the applicant agrees in a contract to purchase parking as required by the existing Code if the City would win the appeal. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office recommends the building and feel it satisfies the recommendations of Ordinance #19. Stated that the Planning Office had informed the applicant that they had been consistently asking applicants to provide employee housing. vidal stated that he disagreed with that request. Pitman stated that with a building of this size on this size lot, it makes it highly impractical for the appli- cant to attempt to put any housing in the buildng. -15- """ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~~ C. F. HOECK EL B. 8. & L. C.~. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 Stated that it was not financially feasible. Stated that they had worked on the concept of having a total commercial building from the very beginning of the pro- ject. Ms. Baer asked the applicant how many employees would be needed to serve this project. Applicant stated that there would possibly be nine employees. Johnson questioned Ms. Baer on how many units the Plan- ning Office expected the applicant to provide in the building. Ms. Baer stated that she could see that the applicant could hardly have nine. Vidal stated that he felt the employee housing question should be similar to the parking question in that the applicant should be able to buyout housing. Felt that housing in the core area was not consistent. Schiffer stated that he did not feel the employee hous- ing was a relevant question in this case. Stated that it would just create additional problems. Johnson stated that he agreed with Schiffer. Jenkins stated that he, too, felt that this particular building should not be required to provide employee housing. Jenkins stated that he was concerned with the final development of the entire block and the general con- figuration. Vagneur stated that there would be l~ lots between this project and the Post Office. Ms. Baer pointed out that this project must go before the Historic Preservation Commission between the Con- ceptual presentation and the preliminary presentation. Jenkins made a motion to approve the conceptual presen- tation of the Third Generation project and that the parking consideration and the amount of parking is not part of this approval and that it is subject to re- evaluation at the preliminary stage. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING- 8040 Line Bartel stated that the earliest possible date for this public hearing would be February 19th. Stated that Council has passed this on first reading. Bartel pointed out that at the time the P & Z recom- mended that ordinance to Council, there were three considerations: (1) that the line be surveyed, which it has been; (2) that there be a voluntary moratorium; (3) that there be a review procedure established so that along the line we can better place building sites. Bartel stated he would like the Commission to read it and then, if they would like, to set a study session -16- I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 15, 1974 on it. Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing on the 8040 Greenline for February 19, seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Bartel reminded the Commission that the meeting would be continued until 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but that the Commission would be meeting at 4:30 to go over the site plan on the ll~ acre area. Vagneur made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting ad- journed at 7:25 p.m.