Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740122 - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORiIl\O C.F.HOECKELB.8.!\ L. CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 22, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:40 p.m. with Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, and Geri Vagnuer. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Follow Up on Vote to Reconsider Motion on Villa of Aspen Chairman Gillis explained to the Commission that the purpose of this meeting is to follow up the vote to reconsider the action taken on the Villa of Aspen. Gillis further explained that the same motion, in the same wording before the Commission again. Stated the procedure that should be taken is to have the same motion, have a second and have discussion. Commission had no objections. Vidal made a motion to approve the preliminary sub- division plan as submitted, as well as the stream margin, but making the stream margin subject to a drainage plan submittal and approval at that time. Motion seconded by Jenkins. Art Daily, Attorney, was present representing the Villa pointed out to the Commission that he had been unable to attend the meeting in which the Commission voted to reconsider the motion on the Villa. Stated that Attorney Jim Moran was present at that meeting on behalf of the Villa and asked that they be per- mitted to reserve their objections until the rehearing of the motion until today. Stated that that had ap- parently been acceptable to the Commission. Daily stated that firstly, the Villa objects to hold- ing a rehearing at this time without any formal no- tice being given. Stated that Section 20-5 of the Code provides that for a hearing on a preliminary plat five days notice of a public hearing will be given to the subdivider as well as to adjoining owners and the notice has to be published. Stated it was the contention of the Villa that any such rehearing should have the same notice and a public hearing should be held. Daily stated that the essence of the argument the ap- plicant would like to make against the rehearing of this matter, it is the Villa's firm belief that any rehearing of the matter, for the purpose of permitting a Commission member to change his vote, is contrary to the laws of the State of Colorado. Stated that the question of the authority of a Municipal Board to re- consider its own earlier judgment is complicated. Stated that this is determined by the function that the board is performing in the decisions made. In this case, we're dealing with approval or disapproval of a request for preliminary plat consideration. Stated the Commission is performing an adjudicative function as distinguished from a legislative function. Daily further stated that adjudicative functions are those which apply the existing law to a specific situ- ation. Stated that the Courts have traditionally de- nied the power of an administrative board to reopen, rehear, reconsider a matter where an adjudicative fun- ction is being performed. Stated that it is important - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.r.HOECKHB.B.S, L.l'O. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 22, 1974 that there be some finality in the decisions of a Com- mission of this type. Daily further stated that judicial actions look to an existing situation, apply the law as it is today to a set of facts as they appear to the Commission today. Daily questioned if the Commission was making their decision on the original facts before the Commission or whether something had intervened. Daily further sited the case of Chitwood v. Adams Coun- ty, 1972, Colorado Supreme Court Case, in which the Court said, "It is well settled in Colorado that a zoning board may hold a rehearing, and even reverse itself, if there has been a substantial change in the facts or circumstances subsequent to the first hear-" ing." Daily pointed out that in this case, there are no new facts or circumstances and the situation has not changed. Schiffer stated that this was not a rehearing, that instead, it was a reconsideration of a motion. Fur- ther stated that, according to the Commission's By- Laws, which incorporate Robert's Rules of Order, the Commission can reconsider a motion without giving any notice. Stated that the provision is that the motion to reconsider can be made and considered pro- vided it is made at that meeting or the next regular meeting, which was the case. Stated it was not another public hearing to get any new input from the public. Referred to Article II, Section 8 of the Aspen Plan- ning and Zoning Commission By-Laws. Daily stated that Robert's Rules of Order are simply procedural rules, and do not say whether or not a re- hearing is legal. Felt that in this state, this type of rehearing is not legal. Gillis stated that the Commission did have the opinion of the City Attorney, who felt this procedure is legal. Schiffer stated that he felt the distinction was that this was a revote rather than a rehearing. MAIN MOTION Roll call vote - Bruce Gillis, nay; Chuck Vidal, aye; Bryan Johnson, aye; Jack Jenkins, nay; Spence Schiffer, aye; Geri Vagneur, aye. Motion carried. Schiffer stated that the reason he voted the way he did was based on two basic grounds: (1) feels it is probably a bad project for that area, and a lot of reasons why the project should have been shot down be- fore, but based on the minutes and the memorandums from the Planning Office to the applicant, the ap- plicant was led to believe that if they satisfied certain conditions, that the Planning Office would feel that the project was suitable for that particular site. Stated that just because the Commission ap- proved the project at this stage, does not mean that they cannot disapprove it at a later stage. Schiffer further stated that his understanding from -2- r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORrol ~O C. F. HOECK EL B. B. a L. CD. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 22, 1974 the Planning Office where the Commission first on it, that the conditions had been satisfied. the main problem was from the point of view of department, and they stated it wasn't an ideal dition, but that they felt that it met all the ments. voted Felt the fire con- require- .. Schiffer stated that the primary reason that he voted as he did was that the applicant had come before the Commission on July 10th (public hearing on preliminary plat) and no action was taken. July 17th no action was taken. November 20th, the matter was tabled. Stated that he understood the applicant did not with- draw voluntarily and that it was up for consideration each one of those times. Stated that the subdivision regulations provide that the Commission must take ac- tion within 30 days of the date of the hearing. They must either approve, disapprove, or approve subject to modifications, and none of those actions were taken. Therefore, feels that this Commission has any power to make any determination at this point. Stated that he felt by not taking action to approve or disapprove, felt the Commission gave up any right to take that action previously. Schiffer stated that he felt that when the applicant returns to the Commission for future approvals, that the other considerations will be extremely relevant. Pointed out that the subdivision regulations do pro- vide that the subdivision cannot be approved if the Commission feels that there is any factor likely to be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants of that project. Johnson stated that even though he voted for the mo- tion, he did not approve of the project in that lo- cation. Does not approve of the idea of rehearing something which has already taken place. Stated that although he did not attend the meeting of the original vote, he would not have voted for it at that time. Jenkins stated he felt the project was not consistent with good design and felt it was using up the last square inch of an area which is neither safe from fire, etc. Johnson made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.