Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840821 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning_Commission August 21, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt commented on the trolley car memo from the planning office. Initially he was upset with the memo. The memo is less than the quality that he expects from the planning office. Planning office appeared to justify their prejudice by invalid statements. For example, the memo indicates the design is incompatible with the scale and character of the pedestrian environment in the Aspen central area. He disagreed with this statement . Is the proposed bus system compatible in scale? There is also a statement that there is no historical validity to the trolley system. The cars came from St. Louis not Portugal . Alan Richman, planning office, defended the conclusion. He could not address the validity of the points. However , he will review the memo. Harvey asked what is the status of the performing arts center. It appears Bill Stirling commented on the art center. Richman will suggest to Stirling to come before the Commission with a presentation and with a recommendation for the Commission to study the idea. Harvey questioned locating a 700 seat auditorium at the music tent. It would probably compound traffic problems in the town. Richman assured the Commission that it is the review body for this and no action has been taken yet. White , representing the trolley task force, reported that the task force responded both positively and negatively to the proposal . The task force believed trolleys are a better scale for the pedestrian rather than the buses . The task force has made a proposal to Council requesting $2 , 500 to update the study. There is general support with the concept of connecting Clark ' s Market and Lift 1-A. Since the trolley is the only vehicle in town which can manuever the hills in the winter time the trolley may be the solution. There is also the feeling of connecting these two locations with something other than a bus, tradition plays a part in this town . Richman asked if the Snowmass shuttle buses could make the grade. White said no. The roads at Snowr7ass are snowmelt. RESOLUTION #84-10 STATE HIGHWAY 82 Harvey noted there is no mention in the "whereas ' s" about the traffic study which indicates the traffic is exceeding or is at 1990 levels. Hunt also noted that the traffic volumes are already exceeding the 1990 projections in 1980 . Glenn Horn, planning office, agreed to locate this statement in the fourth whereas. Fallin concurred that statement is important because Council last week stated it did not think traffic volume was 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 increasing. White requested the seventh whereas be strengthened to indicate the urgency of the traffic problem. Horn suggested language : "traffic delays at the entrance to Aspen are considered to be intolerable. " Harvey said the critical issue is the delay. Fallin argued pedestrian safety is also a critical issue. White noted bicycling is an issue also. Harvey directed Horn to put in: "traffic delays and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. . . " Hunt suggested replacing Seventh Street throughout the document with Main Street. The basic problem is getting the traffic to Main Street. Fallin commented on the eighth whereas . The phrase "in the future" indicates that someday the Commission will address the highway problems . Council ' s delays in addressing the entrance into Aspen is because of the defeat two times of an initiative to realign the highway. Perhaps this resolution should include a statement that the Commission is aware that the electorate opposed the alignment on the other side of the Aspen Villas but that the Commission is looking at widening the highway. Two councilmembers are adamantly opposed to that solution. State that the Commission is looking at improvements to the highway' s present alignment . Harvey doubted limiting the Commission to that. Hunt said the dilemma is that historically there has been no direction. The electorate has been against any proposals. Perhaps express the dilemma in the resolution. Harvey preferred to leave the eighth whereas open. Fallin argued "in the future" is too vague. Horn suggested "improvements to the segment of State Highway E2 and Seventh Street are being looked at by the Commission as part of the Sketch Plan Process. " Peyton commented on number one under "be it resolved. " There is no mention of the interim solution for widening the road to allow passing lanes . Harvey said a resolution becomes too vague if it expresses everything the Commission has discussed. Peyton argued that was a strong sentiment. White remembered the Commission wanted that as the first, immediate, recommended step. Harvey argued an interim step is not a real consideration. Richman said if the state highway department says that four lanes are needed it might not see three lanes as a cost effective way of spending state funds. The highway department may also interpret the three lanes as the city ' s lack of support for solving the highway problems. Harvey said there are two alternatives in the resolution already. Peyton commented on number three. There is no mention of the number of lanes for the parkway. The number should be two lanes. Harvey asked what is a limited access parkway. Horn said it is up to the Commission to determine the language. Horn was trying to keep the language simple. Hunt suggested indicating the Commission ' s preference was limited to two lanes. Horn agreed to include the language to "a limited two lane access 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 parkway. . . " Peyton clarified the intent is to keep the present two lane alignment and to add two lanes. Horn said the solution can be one way pairs or a business road. There are no specifics in the alternatives . This solution is a hybrid. The highway department can study the solution. Peter Forsch, director of transportation for the Aspen Ski Company, congratulated the Commission for tackling this issue . The entrance sorely needs to be addressed. That is the number one transportation bottleneck problem that exists. One of the attributes of the community is open space. Preservation of open space is important. Driving through an open space that is protected is a much better travelling experience for those people coming up and down the valley. He likened it to driving over Vail Pass as opposed to driving through Glenwood Canyon. The later is a nice well engineered highway from which one can enjoy the surrounding beauty, the former is a constricted narrow road. The location of the road alignment on the other side of the airport would be a nice entrance to town. The environment would be clean and rural. Harvey asked for Forsch' s opinion on the Shale Bluff ' s proposal. Forsch said the proposal is not necessarily over the bluffs. It is an absolute necessity, given the traffic situation, to do something with that area. The visibility factor is not that much of a concern. It is not as if the entire town is looking at that one road cut. The road cut is not that visible. From a traffic point of view it is difficult to get tourists to use the public transportation system. There is half an hour to an hour wait at Snowmass because of the traffic congestion primarily due to the bottleneck entrance into Aspen. The buses cannot get to Aspen and back on the normal schedule. People are standing in the cold up to an hour for ten weeks of the season, the ten highest weeks . This is a real transportation disincentive. If the goal is to get people out of their cars then make transpor- tation convenient. The tourist is apt to rent a car and contribute further to the traffic congestion to avoid waiting in the cold. It is a tremendous source of aggrevation to a significant part of the work force who live down valley. From a tourist and employee perspective a solution to the congestion is needed immediately. Hunt asked if a solution of half tunneling at the existing grade to straighten Shale Bluffs has been considered. Forsch responded he has not reviewed that alternative. Forsch believes four lanes is needed from Brush Creek to Aspen. The highway department will have to resolve what is the most realistic solution given budget constraints. White asked if the city has jurisdiction within a three mile radius. Barry Edwards, city attorney, will check this out. Horn said through comprehensive planning the city is responsible for the area. Edwards noted that the highway department is already talking to 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 people about condemning parcels that relate to this plan. Hunt addressed the fourth item under "be it resolved. " He suggested the addition "or half tunnels at or near existing grade to improve State Highway 82 near Shale Bluffs. " Forsch reported that the highway department is in a ticklish situation because of the inaction by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. One alternative for the state in light of indecision is to make a decision for the community for safety and engineering concerns. If the community does not make the decision the state highway will make the decision. Therefore, it behooves the city to take action. Hunt noted that the safety considerations include left turn lanes which eliminate potential passing areas . Left turn lanes may be safe but they slow down traffic. White suggested an item six. Indicate that this issue is important and does need immediate action because of safety. Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #84-10 as amended and to be signed by the chairman; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING SPA CODE AMENDMENTS Richman summarized the minor changes to the resolution. There are no changes on page one. On page two, a subsection four is added. On page three, to subsection "e" is added that publicly zoned properties and academically zoned properties have area and bulk requirements set by SPA and have no availability to vary the uses. SPA is merely a mechanism to get an adopted plan for the site. Gideon Kaufman noted the language in the resolution is awkward. He addressed "e" : "applications for development in any zone district listed in Section 24-3 . 4 of the municipal code as requiring its area and bulk requirements. . . " Richman explained that the area and bulk requirements table for the public and academic zones says the floor area ratio is set by the SPA procedure. Richman suggested language "for which the area and bulk requirements are to be set by adoption. " Harvey commented on 24-7 . 3 (c) : "variations may be permitted which allow a development to exceed the following requirements . . . variations may also be imposed by the planning commission. . . " "Exceed" is the wrong word. The intent is to allow variations in either direction. White does not like "permitted" and "opposed" in the same paragraph. Doremus asked what is the variation that exceeds open space. Richman agreed "exceed" is the inappropriate word. But, limitation may be the minimum or maximum. Edwards suggested the language read "variations from the requirements of the zone may be allowed. " Hunt said it needs t.D indicated that some variations may be imposed. There ,4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 may be tradeoffs. Vann explained that variations can be any- thing. The question to be determined is whether or not variations up have to be offset by variations down. Richman summarized the change : "variations from the following requirements of the underlying zoning may be allowed or opposed. " "Exceed " is deleted. Tygre favored for clarity the last sentence "limit the applicant' s ability to develop to less than the standards of the underlying zone district . " Richman then suggested deleting "opposed" in the first sentence. Tygre said that statement puts the applicant on notice that variations are not necessarily tradeoffs but may go beyond. The conclusion was to leave "allow" in the first sentence, and to leave "opposed" in the last sentence. The first sentence will read "variations from the following requirements may be allowed. " Doremus questioned 24-7 .2 (f) . Is it appropriate in the multiple ownership of a SPA parcel that one owner be able to arbitrarily prohibit his neighbor from any form of development? Harvey said the intent is that someone in a multiple owned SPA parcel cannot come in and ask for a SPA that relates to someone else ' s property without that owner ' s permission. Doremus cited the institute and the Cantrup' s Meadows property. Suppose the institute owner is not interested in a SPA plan. 'Hould the owner of the Meadows ' property forever be prohibited from developing so long as the owner of the institute is not interested? Vann said it depends on the form of ownership. If there is one parcel of property in multiple ownership then one person cannot apply for approval to do something on that property without consent from all the other owners. If there is a block of land split up into three separate parcels and owned by separate individuals with the entire block zoned SPA then one could come in and submit with permission from all three owners a plan for the entire property. If one cannot get the consent from all the owners then one could submit a SPA plan for that portion which he owns. Consent from all owners is needed to submit a plan for the entire parcel. Doremus is troubled by the word "site ; " the whole institute- Meadows property is designated as a SPA site. Harvey argued the language does indicate that SPA is being requested for a piece of property and not for a piece of property already designated SPA. Doremus reasoned for the parcel already designated SPA this would apply also. Doremus questioned the substantial modification of residential units under 24-7 .3 (b) . Hypothesize that there is a particular SPA which is eventually approved for mixed use development. In that development there may be ten single family dwellings . The ten single family dwellings and the rest of the project are buildout under the SPA approved plan. Ten years later an owner of one of the dwellings wants to expand his dwelling substantially. Does he have to go through the SPA process? Richman answered there is an amendment procedure that allows for minor changes. Doremus asked what if the change is substantial, 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1984 the size of the house is doubled. Vann said if the size of the house is doubled then the change is significant. The request simply to add a bathroom is covered through an amendment procedure addressed in 24-7 . 7 . The question is one of degree. Doremus asked again how does the Commission treat the case where someone wants to put an addition which is interpreted as substantial but still is within the zoning parameters existing at the time that the request was made ten years later . Vann said he would review the conditions attached to the approval of the SPA for a recom- mendation as to the extent to which the expansion would affect the original intent of the SPA. If it is found not to be a problem then the change could be done through a number of pro- cesses. If it is a problem then he would present reasons why it was a problem and there would be a forum before Council to disagree. Harvey noted "development" is defined as any activity which materially changes the use of the land in question including but limited to the construction or substantial modification of residential or lodge units. An expansion on a house does not fall under that definition of development unless there is a major change in the FAR or density of the SPA. That change is not an activity which materially changes the use of the land in question. Vann said consider the scenario that the SPA resulted in a creation of subdivided lots and those lots are subsequently sold. The Commission does not participate in the original review of the building constructed on those lots, but the building is subjected to the applicable area and bulk require- ments. If an applicant shows the building originally was underneath those area and bulk requirements and comes forward later to expand the building to the applicable requirements . There is still no reason to review those changes. White remarked he does not want to create any nonconformities or to limit the ability of people to do things. Vann reiterated the Commission does not review the structure to start with. The Commission only reviews the creation of the lot. As long as the expansion conforms to the area and bulk requirements of the lot, then the Commission does not review the expansion. Richman remarked the procedure gives the planning director the authority to look at the building expansions and to look at the amendment procedure of PUD which addresses increases in the floor area by xo , decreases in the open space by y% , etc. He wants to avoid a situation like the Smuggler. The people have to do a SPA amendment to build the shed, that is unreasonable. Richman made changes on page three, to 24-7 . 3 (c ) and (e) . On page five the code is amended so that the park zone district has its area and bulk requirements set by SPA as opposed to PUD. The resulting recommendation is park not park/PUD. In the "be it resolved" section he softened the language. He reasoned that the city was getting ahead of itself in terms of formal recommendations on these sites . The intent of these procedures is to give a first statement as to what the zoning ought to be for the various sites . Once the regulations are 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 adopted planning office then can come in formally with a class action rezoning and with a notice of public hearing. The language states this is a preliminary consideration of zoning options for these sites and that the following designations be considered as possible zoning designations as opposed to presenting these designations as final recommendations. Castle Ridge: Richman commented that 8.33 acres are being leased to a private individual. The project is still owned by the city. The city has a land lease . There is 360, 000 square feet of land. The project is only half built with the existing eighty units according to R/MF zoning. The project uses 170, 000 square feet under the minimum lot area requirements of the code. It is allowed 360 ,000 square feet of buildout. Centennial which is twenty buildings with 240 units is contained within 170 ,000 square feet. Castle Ridge is not bigger than Centennial in terms of building area. Castle Ridge is built well below what is allowed in the R/MF zone. Vann and he concluded that the R-15 multi family designation was not an appropriate answer either . They did not want to see a site become nonconforming simply to prevent the project from becoming bigger. Vann explained that multi family is not allowed in the R-15 zone, that is why the project is nonconforming. Harvey asked what process allowed the project to be built. Vann answered SPA. Harvey said then under the adopted SPA plan the project is conforming. Harvey would not support the potential of doubling the development for the elimination of nonconformity. Vann explained the site has an underlying zoning of R-15 . Through the SPA plan multi family is allowed to be developed at a R-15 density. He argued that the site can be zoned to use but the maximum density can be specified through the adopted plan. The density is no more precluded from being increased by leaving the site designation of R-15 (A U SPA than by designating the site R/LIF with limitations. Harvey asked what is the height limita- tion. Vann replied the adopted plan dictates the height limitation. Harvey remarked the site has a SPA plan with a PUD zone. Does that make the plan nonconforming? Richman said that has to be cleaned up. Harvey does not trust the city to rezone the site before the owner comes forward with a request. Vann suggested zone the site R/PIF, clean up the plan, and zone to use with specific limitations. The owner can always appeal. No one can be precluded from coming forward with an appeal. Harvey argued one could be precluded if the R-15 remains without the SPA. The site would be nonconforming and the owner would have no ability to come forward. Vann said the applicant can request rezoning. Hunt expressed problems with designating the property R/M F. There could be a problem with adjacent property. An adjacent owner might come forward and argue that the neighbor is zoned R/MF therefore why cannot he be zoned R/MF. Vann argued it is not what the existing zoning around a parcel is that matters but it is the 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 adjacent land use that matters. The Commission does not review a request for a parcel based on the reasoning that the adjacent property is at a particular density. There is nothing the Commission can do to preclude someone else from attempting to increase density or to rezone adjacent property. That level of density allowed the problem to surface . From a planning point of view it should be zoned to use to remove the problems of nonconformity. As part of the adopted PUD plan the Commission can specify the maximum buildout with attached reasons. That decision or any other decision does not lock up the parcel. Harvey asked how can an adopted PUD plan be imposed on the parcel when there is no PUD plan. Vann replied there is a recorded SPA plan. The SPA plan simply needs to be cleaned up. Tygre shared similar concerns. Actions do get lost in transition. A procedure has to be adopted which indicates or puts in the record forever the history of a particular property; why and how it was allowed to develop in a particular way. Removing the SPA designation and zoning the parcel to current use with restric- tions does not answer the problem. maintain what is done and maintain the SPA with an attachment explaining what is going on. This provides a clear historical picture of what happened to that parcel . This provides a justification for why the parcel is a certain way. This may be a case where the SPA should be maintained to record the history. There is too much trouble tracing properties. Harvey asked if the city owns the land and the private individuals own the improvements. Kaufman, representing the owner of Castle Ridge, explained there is a long term lease. His client owns the improvements on the land. Vann said there is no way an owner or future purchaser can increase the density without the partici- pation of the city. The city has to agree to be a party . Kaufman said there is no intent on the developer ' s part to expand. But, Kaufman does not want to see something adopted that will prevent his client from making repairs. Repairs are part of his lease requirements. Harvey asked if it is possible to convert a SPA plan to an adopted PUD plan. Richman said the application would have to be taken through the process . The process would simply confer that this is the plan for the site. It is less complicated than a proposal for developing units. Vann said he has not taken each site to fruition. The intent is to determine whether it is reasonable or not to change the underlying zone. In the case of Castle Ridge it makes sense to change the underlying zoning. A PUD plan, as a SPA plan, constitutes the allowable density and adopted plan for a specific area. Both can be undone by the elected officials and modified. He sees no more protection offered in calling the site a SPA versus calling the site R/r4F. Both imply that the Commission reviews the specific density approved for that site. Harvey argued the door is open for a minute when the SPA no longer 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meetina Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 applies and the PUD is not adopted. Richman said he would insure that that does not take place. Tygre argued that R/MF is not a permitted use. The reason for the SPA is to allow a use change, to allow R/I..F in a R-15 density. Vann said SPA was adopted to allow multi family. The parcel is developed to what amounts to a R-15 density. Whether the parcel is R-15, R/MF, or whatever , the adopted plan constitutes the approved density for the project . No one can increase that density without amending either the SPA plan or the PUD plan. Harvey said the Commission can if the SPA is removed. Richman noted the intent is to have a PUD plan adopted which confirms the improvements and denies expansion to the R/MF density. He will add that in the document so that when the parcel is carried forward it will be known what is going on. Hunt suggested the approach of zoning the parcel R-15/PUD. Modify the R-15 code to allow R/M.F where originally allowed by SPA. His major concern is that the owner next door can put up an apartment house . Vann said assume there is enough land to put up an apartment house. No one can put up an apartment house first without rezoning . The rezoning has to be consistent with the adjacent land use. One can create an argument that additional multi family is consistent with the adjacent land use regardless of what the zoning is. The zoning on the parcel is meaningless. Therefore, one cannot be stopped from coming in with an applica- tion. Through the land use plan, however, the city may not think that additional multi family development in this area is appro- priate. Therefore, it may turn down an application for rezoning even though the application is next to door a R/PiF parcel. Hunt said if the parcel is zoned R-15 where R/t•.F is allowed through SPA approval , the neighboring landowner who wants to put up an apartment house might decide to go through the SPA process rather than to go through a rezoning process to R-15. Vann said the Commission is not going to encourage SPA applications around this parcel. Hunt is not against an apartment house next door so long as it is consistent with the P.-15 density. How can this be maintained if the Castle Ridge parcel is rezoned R/MF/PUD. Vann said R/MF does not guarantee maximum density. The R/MF insures that the allowable density is such . An application must be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. It must include open space. There is no guarantee that someone will get that . The potential exists. Assume there is a vacant parcel and the parcel is left R-15/SPA. Assume someone wants to build a multi family project. That person will not go through the SPA process for that objective. There is no reason why. That person will ask for a rezoning to R/1.F. What is the density control under R/17? It is the allowable density as modified by the adjacent development. The way the SPA process is evolving no one would ever use the SPA process again to accomplish this objective. Tygre said there is a reason the SPA is on the parcel. It was an 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1984 overwhelming benefit to the community to build at this density for the purpose of providing employee housing . That intent should still be there.. The other person who comes in and wants to build an apartment house may not provide that kind of community benefit. Things get lost i.. recorc` . Li.ieb qhen the city tries to build employee housing , for example, through special mechanisms the action is not traceable. Eventually someone- will find a way to use the mechanism in a way it was not intended to be used for. Vann shared the concern about tracing the process for the future. However, he prefers as a planner that this be consistent and be logical under a zoning category. Provide the desired intent in that process. For example, the next Council may want to build housing next door. The same thing may happen as it did with this project. There is vacant land. The applicant will ask how to site employee housing. The planning office will suggest changing the use through SPA. The parcel is R-15. only eighty units are needed. R-15 accommodates the eighty units. Therefore the zone should be R-15 . Go through SPA to make the use work . The project works. Hunt reasoned there is a better way to handle this. Do not allow straight R/11F. Allow the adjacent owner through a zoning change to build a free market R/MF project. Attach that the reason for the R/MF is to encourage the building of employee housing. Vann said that is a discretionary decision. Hunt argued the reason the R/MF is there is for the benefit of the community, employee housing . The adjacent owner may not be interested in employee housing. Vann retorted the Commission may not grant that owner R/MF. Just because there is multi family there now does not, regardless of the zone district, mean that an adjacent property owner is entitled to the same type of development. The same logic applies to L-3 lodge. Just because the lodges are rezoned L-3 does not mean the adjacent Victorian owner is entitled to tear his Victorian down and build a L-3 lodge. Furthermore, the Commission can deny that owner the right to do that. Harvey wanted to insure that the intent of the SPA is transferred and maintained with an adopted plan. Trace in the record why what went on went on. Vann suggested that the document reflects the Commission ' s understanding why R/MF is appropriate and the Commission ' s concern about the implications of that kind of decision. The Commission wants the planning office to provide more analysis. There are some real problems associated with this. Harvey directed Richman to note this in the document. Rubey Park: Richman enclosed in the packet a sheet stating the intent and the permitted uses of the public zone. Based on the uses permitted clearly the transportation is permitted. Commercial uses are not permitted. A snack bar for a transit center is not a problem because it can be an accessory use. If there is a series of in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 commercial shops which are not considered to be accessory then the Commission can decide to change the permitted uses or change the project. Vann said the vagueness of the code provides the flexibility that is needed. If there is a public bus station and there is a need for a ski check-in then the Commission can interpret that as a permitted public use. Hunt asked if the SPA process allows that. Richman noted that is being removed from SPA. One goes through the SPA process to get the development approved. Harvey commented that transportation related facilities and community recreation facilities can be provided with accessory uses such as snack bar or chamber of commerce. Vann said the code details criteria for the determination of accessory uses : frequency, normal working hours in conjunction with the operation of public facilities, etc. The criteria has worked well in the past. Little Nell: Kaufman, representing the Aspen Ski Company, disapproved of the comment that this code amendment review is just a first step, therefore, leave the parcel cc/PUD and deal with this later. Once the process starts the PUD needs to be fought. He preferred to leave the cc. If the owner wants to change the zoning designation then it can be discussed later. He provided some history of the property. At the time of the adoption of the SPA, in 1977 , the SPA language reflected flexibility for development. The city was willing to give the developer some breaks from the underlying zoning , from height, etc . , if the developer could provide the community the kind of development that the city needed. The developer sought SPA for its flexibi- lity, for example, to build a hotel with kitchens and to vary height or setbacks. Now there is a movement to eliminate the SPA . The elimination of the SPA is all right. But the SPA is not to be replaced with a mandatory PUD. The mandatory PUD is inappropriate. There is also an important distinction between a SPA, PUD, and mandatory PUD. PUD is similar to the SPA. The language is positive. The language is flexible . A PUD is inappropriate because the language of the code addresses cluster zoning, varied uses, and residential uses. PUD is not designed for a single commercial building. The mandatory PUD is totally different. The language in the code talks in terms of reduction. That is appropriate for sites that are too steep, for sites that do not have utilities, for sites that have specific problems with their development. The mandatory PUD is inappropriate for this site . The part of Little Nell zoned cc is totally flat. All the utilities are there. SPA or PUD designation is fine, but mandatory PUD is negative and is inappro- 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 priate. He suggested eliminate the SPA. Retain the cc. Give his client the opportunity to ask for a PUD or SPA when his client has a plan. His client then benefits from the positives. A mandatory PUD is negative and is different from what his client asked for. Vann explained only a portion of the property is zoned SPA, that is the cc portion. He differed from Kaufman as to why the SPA was imposed. The applicant felt that this particular location was important to the community. The applicant felt that the flexibility inherent in the SPA process would insure the best results for the community. The applicant' s request for a SPA was not necessarily for hotels or anything else . The intent was to provide site planning flexibility and use flexibility. In reality, the entire base area should be SPA. There is a need for flexibility for redevelopment at the base of Little Mell to make a positive contribution to this community. However , Council will not buy a SPA designation for the base area of Little Nell. The objections are from the adjacent residential developments. They feel the SPA is carte blanche for the ski company to build a major hotel at the base of the area. From the new SPA perspective it is no longer necessary to zone that portion cc SPA since cc allows any use for which the planning office believes appropriate in that location. The SPA cannot be expanded. But there is still a need for flexibility to design the parcel in the future. That is the reason for the PUD designation. Vann remarked some of Kaufman' s points are well taken. There are certain penalty aspects in the designation mandatory PUD. The compromise is to remove it and leave the parcel cc. Recognize that anyone who tries to develop is going to need the flexibility of PUD. The other compromise is probably the correct answer is the more appropriate : recommend SPA designation to the remaining property, enlarge the SPA. The property needs the appropriate flexible designation to accomplish the objectives. Hunt expressed concern with the simple cc designation. This might encourage the building of a monolithic structure which would block the view of the mountain from street grade level. SPA was designated to protect that view. Kaufman explained under the existing G11P allocation it would take ten years to get the quota to build that out. The applicant also would have to score high enough in the GMP. Hunt favored SPA for the site, not mandatory PUD. Peyton said Council would buy the SPA if the line was delineated lower down the hill . The line originally went to the top of the lift . Draw the line lower than the conservation zone. Council would then agree . Forsch noted the line was a function of the property. Peyton explained what scared everyone was that the line was drawn to include all the conservation. Simultaneously 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 the applicant was saying he had no intention of developing below the flat area. Vann said there is a reasonable location on the slope where the line could be placed. That is a reasonable alternative. The line still has to go up the slope part of the way. Any redevelopment of the area involves moving some of the base lifts . There is a reasonable compromise that might allay the fears of some of the adjacent neighbors . There was another objection by Council . Council was not willing under the old regulations to expand the SPA in the absence of a specific plan. It was a catch twenty-two. Harvey asked if the existing SPA designation is only on the cc portion of the property. Vann said yes. Harvey asked if the Commission should recommend expanding the SPA designation. Vann said when the Commission gets to the actual rezoning , then yes. At this point the Commission should simply say retain the SPA and may be expand it . Previously, the conservation line was placed at the base of the slopes. The view starts the 0040 line . Dunaway asked why change the current designation, cc/SPA, on the property. The SPA on the cc portion is desirable. Delete Little Nell from the resolution so its present designation is maintained. Harvey said SPA is being changed so much that the Little Nell property needs to be considered in the same way as the institute with language of intent and history. There is no intent now to rezone. Public hearings are necessary. Harvey asked the Commission ' s sentiment on retaining the SPA designation. Little Nell does fall within the definition of a sensitive area that needs to be planned under SPA. Hunt, White, and Fallin agreed to retain the cc/SPA designation. Vann assured the Commission that the comments to Council will indicate the area still warrants SPA designation to insure flexibility. Richman said the cc/PUD designation precludes kitchens in any of the units . Kaufman said the hotel needs variations to permit certain unallowed uses in the cc zone. The zone accommodates residential or hotel lodging. The flexibility is appropriate. Trueman• Hunt requested a rough range of proportions, for example, 30o SCI , 70'0'- nc. Vann asked how Hunt proposes to establish the percentages. Vann said the ranges of square feet can be determined but not necessarily as a part of this action. The square feet determination is part of a detailed rezoning request . Put conditions on the square footage at the time of rezoning . Richman assured the Commission there will be a class action on all these sites, from rezoning to adoptions, etc. Hunt asked if this requires any action by the Trueman people at this point. Richman again explained these are recommended designations for 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1984 future consideration. The goal is to show Council some intent. Hunt said if the mix cannot be achieved in the future then it is better to stay with the current process. Vann replied that the mix cannot be maintained now. Harvey said that is not written anywhere. Vann said the only way to deal with the mixed use is through a request for use determination or through conditional use. Richman said there are few permitted uses , everything comes in as a conditional use. Hunt said he does not want to lose control . Vann reminded the Commission conditional use review is still within its purview. none of this action removes conditional use review. It is not the SPA that gives the Commission the ability to accomplish the objective that Hunt wants. The request for use determination or conditional use is the appropriate time . Those review processes will continue whether or not the designation is PUD or SPA. Hunt said it would be easier if there was a guideline to work with. Richman responded adopt that in a PUD plan. The Commission thought it had adopted it in the SPA plan, but the Commission did not. The uses are not being varied here therefore why use SPA. SPA is not the correct tool. Institute: John Doremus supported Richman ' s comments. But Richman left out something very important. By implication the deletion worries him. One of the seriously considered future uses of the property is residential . There is no reference to residential . The academic zoning designation could lead one to believe that residential is not appropriate. Realize the property is surrounded on three and a half sides by residential. The long-term occupied trustee houses account for a small amount of residential use . A large portion of the property which is permitted any use has never been developed. Residential use may be the appropriate use for the property. Residential development is compatible with that which is across the street. Recognition of the residential use is important. Harvey argued the difficulty is that the Commission is attempting to indicate the historical uses of the property. Residential, other than that associated with trustee housing, is not an historical use on the property. For the Commission to include the residential use may not be appropriate. Doremus asked if the historical use is the only justification for future use. Harvey answered no. But the Commission ' s intent is to comment why the SPA designation is on the parcel. The purpose is to talk about the different historical uses and talk about why the SPA is important to the community and why the SPA should be the method for reviewing a development proposal. Vann said it was not the intent to preclude other developments as well. Harvey said a SPA is the only mechanism that allows the city to vary a use from the underlying zone. That is why it is being put here. Doremus said the word "variation" does not mean anything. 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1984 Harvey cannot recommend including the intent of what the owner ' s future intent is for the institute . Doremus suggested include a broad classification of use, residential is huge. Doremus did not suggest that density and zone be determined. Vann said is the first use that comes to mind is residential since the area is primarily residential. The intent in this statement is to recognize the historical uses in a predominantly residential area . The belief is_ the SPA is appropriate and necessary if the suggested uses are to be developed in a residential area. The purpose of the SPA is to provide flexibility in the event the uses are located in the residential area. The intent is not to preclude residential development. Council may not agree with this. He favors residential development over lodge development. Joe T%Tells , consultant for the future buyer of the institute, argued given the very limited number of uses called out in the academic designation the natural inclination would be to look at the intent. There is no mention of the appropriateness of a residential use . One can assume the city does not intend the residential use to be there. Harvey suggested separate out the historical uses from the intent for SPA designation. Richman suggested that the first paragraph articulate the unique aspects of the parcel ; the second paragraph can deal with the history. Harvey suggested indicate the intent is for institutional or academic use in a single family area. The fact is the parcel accommodates short and long term accommodations. There are no single family homes owned by people who are not associated with institutional type activities. In the second paragraph expand the second sentence about the type of accommodations : lodge, townhouses, trustee houses, etc. Doremus suggested a double zone classification, for example, academic-residential/SPA. Recognize that the residential use is a natural , appropriate use. If the Commission does not do that then reference that residential u A is appropriate and that the residential use is not a variation from academic. Vann had iio problem ,%Yith academic-residential. He under_-ooa that n- sif i cation of the academic uses drill be surrounded by oxen space or low density residential as a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Hunt said the proposals seen to date for this parcel have claimed residential as being accessory use to the institutional or academic aspects. Vann reminded the Commission that there has been no specific proposal for the remainder of the site which could be developed as residential . The only applications that have come forward have been for the academic portion . That academic portion only covers a certain portion of the site . There are huge vacant areas which applications have never been submitted. Wells clarified that there have been applications for the entire site. That is the nature of the SPA. Doremus corrected 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 Vann that there was an application for five single family dwellings proposed in the last application; it was the Blue Ribbon committee ' s recommendation. Hunt said the institute' s application incorporated residential use as accessory residential. The residential was designed to support the institutional activities . TVlells noted there are obligations in the purchase agreement to provide housing to the institute. What was proposed before is being carried over in the sale agreement. Hunt asked if there is a problem with calling it accessory residential . Doremus said some of the land is likely not be accessory residential. Andy Fleck said that one cannot build more residential than what is needed to balance the academic . Do not restrict the residential to the academic use. Harvey was reluctant about the academic-residential . The Commission then would have to specify the residential zone without a specific plan. The point of the SPA is to allow for changes in uses and to allow nothing to be done until the adoption of a specific plan for the entire area. Tfliite suggested adding "short and long term accommodations" to the first sentence of paragraph two. Add also to recreational "health facilities. " Harvey directed Richman to expand accommodations. Spell out that there has been long term residential uses, lodge type accommoda- tions, and townhouse condominiums. This reflects the historical proposal for residential uses. He anticipates some residential uses will be evaluated under the SPA plan. He does not want to look at the specifics at this time. That is the purpose of the SPA plan. Wells commented on the issue of growth management . When the institute filed its previous application purely short term lodge use was not envisioned by the city or the institute. At one time he was asked to analyze how the proposal would have scored under the lodge growth management quota system. He found that the application could not be scored under the then current system. He suspects it is difficult to score the application under the current system simply because the lodge growth management is written for the lodge districts. The application consequently is not competitive . At that time , the city was not judging whether it was appropriate to grant an exemption for a proposed use until the city was comfortable with the proposal . That point was never reached. Be alert to the problem that if the Commission concludes it is inappropriate to deny an exemption then some amendment is needed to to make the project competitive. Vann commented that if something is by definition a lodge in growth management terms, then it is subject to growth management competition unless there are some extenuating circumstances, for example, prior lawsuits. If this project is conceived and developed 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 in such a way that under the definition of growth management it is not a lodge then it is not subject to competition. Harvey said he is not aware that there is growth management competition for the academic zone similar to the L-1 and L-2 and L-3 . Wells commented that was part of the argument being made by the applicants at the time; the SPA is not subject to competition. Vann explained if the Commission decides there should be a lodge, for example a L-2 use , under the SPA then the application has to compete regardless of the underlying zone. The question is what is the function of the kinds of facilities being proposed. That will determine whether the application is subject to growth management. Harvey said the potential is there for someone to say there is a L-2 use and therefore one has to compete. But the applicant cannot because the scoring system and the criteria are geared toward the geographical location of zones. Dunaway said the reason the city considered exemption was because the institute was applying for exemption. If Cantrup had not applied for exemption the city would not have considered it. why discuss something when there are no plans? There is no intent to submit plans until the hotel is approved. The implication is that the new owner should have an exemption although he has not submitted plans . Pdo one can commit exemptions without plans. Wells did not suggest that the Commission should judge now whether or not an exemption is appropriate. The only reason an exemption was considered appropriate in the previous applications was because of the institute' s use and the community' s desire to maintain that use. That would be the logical reason to grant an exemption for the present application. If growth management is applied then there are certain uses that may be proposed that cannot be scored under the current system. Harvey concurred. Richman said this is not the place to consider the changes to the scoring system. He discouraged the categorical statement that SPA is exempt from the G111P. There may be a determination made on a specific project so that an exemption is created. Categorically, all regulations do apply. In specific circumstances the Commission may determine they do not. Vann said this issue hinges on what is being built. Lodge growth management is designed to regulate the number of short term accommodations available to the public. If this is set up so that the lodging is only available to certain people at certain times. Dunaway reported that historically Robert 0. Anderson had trouble with Council. That problem was that Anderson never agreed to limit the amount of accommodations available at the institute. He wanted to limit the length of stay. The primary use was for a conference center with the ability to rent to the public during times when there were no conferences. This is a difficult question. Vann agreed this will be far more complex than the hotel. It is clearly a question of magnitude, the nature of the operation, etc. 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1984 Rio Grande: Hunt requested that the statement of intent include that the property was transferred to public ownership originally through the seventh penny tax for transportation purposes. The sixth penny came later when the city wanted a ball park . Let it be known that the property was originally purchased for transpor- tation purposes. �iarvey addressed the second paragraph: it has never been reached as to the optimal mix of uses. " He thought there was a consensus as to the uses but not as to where the uses went. Richman said the conceptual plan does not include all the uses defined by the previous task force . There seems to be some question. The restaurant has been a question mark. There is not a final adopted SPA plan for the site. T7hite requested expanding the need for pedestrian walkways throughout the site in paragraph one ("library, greenway, trails, and restaurant") . He also suggested offering studio space for artists on the site. There is the art museum across the river. Richman said that has not been an historically contemplated use in the plans . Artist studio fits under cultural use. Harvey did not want to expand the Rio Grande master plan or the historical uses. Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on the SPA code amendments to September 4, 1984; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. ERIRSEN SPECIAL REVIEW Colette Penne, planning office, introduced the application. The applicant is asking the Commission to exempt from growth management competition the change of use of a 502 square foot one bedroom residential unit to commercial space. The space is cc zoned. The space is in the building where Les Chefs d'Aspen is located. Presently the shop occupies over 1 ,900 square feet on the ground floor of the mezzanine. The 502 square feet is also located on the ground level. It is a garden apartment. It is not deed restricted. It is rented within employee guidelines but there is a specific policy that if a unit is not deed restricted that the use can be exchanged to commercial space without the provision of replacing the housing unit. Tire intent of the change in use is to use the space for the cooking school. The space is less tight and allows the school to operate more efficiently. There is no plan to add more staff. There is no parking requirement in the cc zone. A kitchen presently exists. All the service needs exist. The kitchen will not have to be expanded. Traffic and road impacts will be ;Measurably increased by this addition. There will not be a visual impact because the space is contained within the structure. There will be no drainage impacts since the expansion is only 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 within the interior . The comments from engineering and housing do not result in any particular conditions. She recommended the Commission approve the change in use for the conversion of the unit to commercial space for the use by Les Chefs d'Aspen. Hunt asked if this makes the space contiguous to the alley. Andy Heck, representing the applicant , said the garden will remain between the building and the alley. Hunt asked if the design will be contiguous to the alley so it can be serviced from the alley. Heck answered no. Fallin said the area could be serviced. Tygre asked if the space is being expanded or is the use being changed. Penne answered the use is being changed. No physical construction will be done. I'Mite favored Adamski ' s comment in the letter from the housing authority that there is nothing wrong with the change except for the loss of a housing unit. V-7hite said there is nothing being proposed to replace it. There is ample empty commercial space in town. It is not good to lose one more local housing. Heck said the apartment can be used for anything. It is not deed restricted. Harvey argued if the market works right the space may not be rented as commercial space. The owner may convert it to residential use . Barry Edwards , city attorney, said the solution is to approach Council and ask them to enact rent control. Penne reported a conversation between Adamski and her. Adamski said he had no comment because he did not have authority over this. Last year a resolution was passed that dealt with a policy on how to handle this. The policy clearly states unless the is deed restricted the city has nothing to say about this kind of action. Tygre shared I,Thite's concern. There is a problem. There are certain people around town who traditionally rent within employee guideline: but they do not want to be deed restricted or restricted to future use . Rents are elevated for a certain period of time before applying for condominium conversion. There is nothing that can be done about that either . Penne said there is some advantage to flexibility in the commercial area, space adjusts to market demands. There is also an advantage to deed restriction, that keeps the unit residential. But, there may be a time when the commercial space is exceedingly important to that building owner. The change in use exemption may be very useful. She does not know how the Commission weighs these. It is important now for people downtown to be able to switch the uses as long as the impacts can be mitigated. Harvey said if a policy of replacement is adopted then the commercial business cannot expand. It is nice to see successful businesses expand. The other problem is that the landlord may raise the rent and the city may lose the employee housing. 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 21. 1984 Hunt commented that this space is not a desirable apartment given its location. Therefore, it is riot hard to give up the residential use for the commercial use. Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend approval for a change in use GP°IP exemption for the conversion of a 502 square foot residential unit to commercial space in the building at 405 South Hunter for use by Les Chefs d'Aspen; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. David White opposed the motion. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 00 p.m. Barbara Morris, Deputy City Clerk ,?n