Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19730712 / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C,F.HOE:CKlL8.B.bL.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Ie... July 1"1-, 1973 Vice Chairman Bruce Gillis called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. with Bryan Johnson and Jack Jenkins. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel. Carl Bergman - View Plane Consideration Herb Bartel distributed a letter to the Commission from Ken Hubbard. attorney representing Carl Berg- man. Charles Vidal arrived. Hubbard explained in the letter that the proposed building site is located on Main Street, diagon- ally across from the Hotel Jerome. The proposed structure would consist of 12,000 square feet - including retail space, office space, storage space, and underground parking. Hubbard pointed out that the proposed view plane ordinance for the Hotel Jerome would eliminate almost 50% of the usable area of the structure. An alternative which Hubbard suggested in his letter was a partial "trade-off" of the open space in front of the building for the space being taken by the proposed view plane ordinance. At this point, a diagram of the proposed building was submitted. It was further pointed out that the view plane entirely eliminated the third floor and partially eliminated the second floor. Bartel explained that if Council passes Ordinance #19, the ordinance won't be in effect until after publication. Presently this project falls under Ordinance #9. The Board of Adjustment could throw it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission, since hardships of this type are not considered by the Board. Vidal stated he would like the Architects Collabo- ration to provide a guideline for this area of concern. Vice Chairman Gillis suggested that one alterna- tive would be to lease or purchase parking space and use the basement and sub-basement for retail space. Bartel explained that in order to purchase parking, it would cost $4,800 per space, payable over a 20- year period. Commission asked Bergman if he purchased the park- ing spaces, would it be possible to eliminate the elevator. Bergman explained that the elevator would cost $60,000 and was necessary for moving merchandise. Hubbard pointed out that he felt the 15 foot limit for the view plane was arbitrary and completely unrelated to construction. Felt that Bergman is being restricted to 25% open space in addition to the view plane open space. . ~.~"'._-,-- r- --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F.tIOECKU. a. a.1i l. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Ie.. July ~ 1973 It was further pointed out that due to the view plane, Bergman would lose 3,966 square feet of the total 12,000 square feet of above-ground space. Vidal stated that the possible view plane in- trusion is an architectural problem, and thus would have to be solved by the architects. Further considerations pointed out by Bergman were: (1) They would try to save the trees; (2) Replacing curb in Main Street; (3) Gen- eral site improvement; (5) Zoning enforce- ment policy - review by Building Inspector. Commission agreed to table Bergman's request un- til a possible compromise could be worked out. Curt Chase - View Plane Consideration Attorney Jim Moran, representing Curt Chase, was present to voice his concern about the Indepen- dence Pass View Plane from Rubey Park. Moran requested consideration for withdrawing the recommended view planes from Rubey Park and fur- ther review by the Planning Office of the recom- mendations. Stated the combination of view planes has serious consequences for Chases's property. Presently, he would have to oppose the view plane to Independence Pass. MOran pointed out the view plane at present goes from 15 feet at the property line, to approxi- mately 25 feet at the oppesite side. Stated that Chase has no development plans at the pre- sent time. Would like to see the view planes brought back to the Planning and Zoning Com- mission for further considerations. Bartel explained that the first presentation from the Planning Office did not include the view of Independence Pass, but it was added at the re- quest of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stated that in order for the view planes to get a full test, they must relate to specific deve- lopment proposals. Moran then brought up the question of the view plane as a taking of space. Moran further ques- tioned why the Planning Office has not sent notice to the property owners affected by the view planes of at least the public hearings on the view planes. Bartel explained that this was due primarily to a lack of money, and that it was quite an ex- pensive process. Commission agreed to bring view planr proposals back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration before sending recommen- dations to Council. Further agreed that it would be beneficial to take a field trip to the -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C- F. HOECKtL a. B. Ii L. C~. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning ,-<- July l;&, 1973 proposed view plane sites in order to determine exactly what the affects of the view planes would be. Meeting adjourned into study session at 7:15 p.m.