Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Villas of Aspen.A103-99 .. -J.'f!; 1'*', ~ MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager , John Worcester, City Attorney if~ ' Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direct " ' Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer.5D FROM: RE: Appeal of Code Interpretation: Sections 26.470.070(J) & (L), GMQS Exemptions-Affordable Housing & Free Market Residential, AH Associated, Section 26.480,020(B), Subdivision-Applicability and Prohibitions-Development Allotment DATE: January 24, 1999 SUMMARY: This appeal of a Code Interpretation of the Community Development Director relates to Section 26.480.020(B), of the Aspen Land Use Code that states the following: Development Allotment. No development order for a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Sections 26.470.070(J) & (L) allow for GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and AH associated free market housing. Such proposals must obtain the exemption prior to rezoning and subdivision, The Villas of Aspen, represented by Nancy Hinrichs, is seeking to subdivide the parcel on which the Villas is located into two parcels, The parcel on which the townhomes are located is currently zoned RMF and land which they wish to subdivide off is currently zoned R-15. The applicant seeks to subdivide and rezone the R-15 portion of the parcel. BACKGROUND: In a letter dated September 22, 1999 and signed by Nancy Hinrichs, the Villas of Aspen Townhouses submitted a code interpretation request to determine if rezoning and subdivision could proceed prior to receiving a GMQS exemption or development allotment (see Exhibit A). In such a scenario the appellant proposes that the subdivision plat would include a restriction that the newly created lot could only be developed under affordable housing guidelines, The Community Development Department, through a formal code interpretation dated October 20,1999 (see Exhibit B), stated that such a process was contrary to the requirements of the code, and that such a process could not be undertaken within the current framework of the code. DISCUSSION: The applicant is asking the City to interpret the Land Use Code differently than put forth in the Community Development Director's memo (Exhibit B), and allow the process of obtaining a GMQS exemption and subdividing to be reversed from what the Code dictates. The language of the Code as noted above in the Summary section clearly identifies the steps and timing of the applicable process. City Councii < ." I'"" ~ may feel there is some merit to a reversed process, as Mitch Haas' letter dated January 3, 1999 argues (see Exhibit C), but such a process requires a code amendment. The applicant also argues that the City has allowed open space parcels to be subdivided without obtaining a GMQS allotment. Staff believes, as mentioned in the Director's Interpretation, that comparing open space with affordable housing is not applicable. Although both serve a community need, in providing open space there are not the same issues that are related to a potentially dense AH development. AH development requires a level of review beyond that of an open space parcel. CONCLUSION: As mentioned above, although Council may feel there may be some merit to allowing proposed affordable housing developments to be subdivided and rezoned prior to obtaining any GMQS allocation, the Land Use Code does not allow for such a process. There is no exemption from the process for including a plat note, or in some other way restricting the property for affordable housing development, which allows an applicant to deviate from this process. Section 26.480.020(B) clearly states a GMQS exemption or development allocation must be obtained prior to a development order for subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Community Development Director's interpretation of Section 26.470.070(1) & (L) and Section 26.480,020(B) as put forth in Exhibit B, finding that the code does not allow for deviations from this process. In addition, it is recommended that if Council sees merit in changing the above process, staff should be directed to pursue a code amendment that would allow affordable housing proposals to receive subdivision approval prior to GMQS allotments, provided the approval is legally binding in terms of providing affordable housing at a future time. At such time staff would fully evaluate the pros and cons of such a proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 2000- ~ upholding the Community Development Director's Code Interpretation dated October 25, 1999, regarding Sections 26.470.070(1) & (L), GMQS Exemptions for AH associated projects and Section 26.480.020(B), Subdivision as related to development allotments." EXHIBITS: Exhibit A --- Request for Interpretation Exhibit B m Director's Interpretation Exhibit C --- Request for Appeal ofInterpretation G:/planningJaspenlmemoslsubdivisioninterp.doc 2 - . ~ EXh;bd' A .-.., ,-..., September 22, 1999 Ms. Nancy Hinrichs 100 North Eighth Street, #2 Aspen, C0816II Ms. Julie Ann Woods Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 816II RE: Request for Fonnal Code Interpretation Dear Julie Ann: This letter requests a fonnal Interpretation of Title, pursuant to Section 26.306.010 of the Land Use Code. It is my understanding that, pursuant to Section 26.4i.p70(J) and (L) of the Aspen Municipal Code, development of deed restricted and free market dwelling units in accordance with and under the provisions of the Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AHlPUD) zone district, are exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) scoring and competition procedures. I also understand that the City has, in the past, agreed that subdivision for the sake of creating a dedicated open space parcel (i.e., sterilized from the potential for future development) would not require the receipt of any GMQS allocations, credits, or development rights. The Villa of Aspen Townhouses ("Villa") are developed on a single lot containing two underlying zone districts, The developed portion of the lot contains multi-family townhouse structures (36 units in total) and is zoned RMFtPUD, The other portion of the lot is currently vacant/undeveloped and is zoned R-15tPUD. The line differentiating the two zoning designations happens to correspond almost exactly with the physical break between the developed and undeveloped portions of the lot. To subdivide off the undeveloped, R~15tPUD portion of the site from the remaining, developed (RMFtPUD) part of the lot, a GMQS allocation would typically be needed, The Villa Condominium Association ("the Association") may be interested in subdividing the lot along the division between the two zone districts, and concurrently rezoning the R-15tPUD portion to AHlPUD, The Association would be willing to restrict, by plat note and/or other legally acceptable mechanism, the newly created lot such that it could only be developed in accordance with and under the provisions of the AHlPUD zone district. Further, the same restriction could clearly explain that no free market single-family or duplex development rights exist on the created parcel unless developed as part of an acceptable AHlPUD development plan (i,e., an ADU or cash-in- lieu would not provide a GMQS Exemption for the construction of detached or duplex dwelling unit). Given the two above.described understandings, namely that I) development in accordance with the AHlPUD zoning is exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, and that 2) the creation of a new lot (via.subdivision) can occur without any GMQS allocations provided a deed restriction of some sort is executed to limit the future I ~ , !~ r\ ability to use the subject property, it would seem reasonable to allow such a scenario as that explained in the preceding paragraph. The intention of this request, therefore, is to determine whether or not the City would allow, 'subject to review, an application to subdivide the Villa lot and rezone the R," 15/PUD portion to AH/PUD without first requesting and obtaining a GMQS allocation for the subdivision through the competition and sooring procedures. When rendering this interpretation, I ask that you please keep in mind that, as mentioned above, the Villa would be willing to restrict, by plat note and/or other legally acceptable mechanism, the newly created lot such that it could onlv be developed in accordance with and W1der the provisions of the AH/PUD zone district. Such a proposal, if approved, would merely defer (but not avoid) the requirements of Section 26.480.020(B) W1til such time as an actual development application is brought before the City. Since I will be leaving town on the 5th of October and not returning W1til the end of the month, I would greatly appreciate a response as quickly as you can render one. If you need any additional information from me, please contact me by phone at 925-7614, or call Mitch Haas at 925-7819. Sincerely, ~.~ Nancy Hinrichs,cVilla Condominium Association 2 ,,-... !~ ~/< h ;1>11 8 , ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPlVIENT DEPARTMENT CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.470,070(J) & (L) GMQS Exemptions - Lot Split, Section 26.480,020 (B)(Subdivision- Applicability and Prohibitions - Development Allotment) EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 1999 WRITTEN BY: ') !,~LcI ij~ Y) Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer APPROVED BY: DATE: I~/J-<<; /~ It I S1JM~IARY: Nancy Hihrichs, representative of the Villa of Aspen Condominium Association, submitted a code interpretation request to the Community Development Department on September 22, 1999 to detennine if rezoning and the subdivision of the Villas parcel can proceed through the land use review process prior to obtaining the necessary GMQS exemption or development allotment. BACKGROUND: Sections 26.470.070(J) & (L) allow for a GMQS exemption for affordable housing and AH associated housing projects. Section 26.480,020(B), Subdivision - Applicability and Prohibitions - Development Allotments requires that no development order for a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a Gl\lQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. The Villas currently own a parcel of land that has two underlying zoning districts, RMF /PUD and R-15/PUD. The portion zoned Rt\t1F/PUD contains 36 townhouses, and the R-15/PUD portion is undeveloped. The applicant would like to subdivide off the R-15/PUD section and rezone to AH/PUD, Ms. Hinrichs is requesting a code interpretation to detennine if rezoning to AH/PUD and subdivision can proceed prior to obtaining a GMQS exemption or allotment. The applicant is \\illing to "restrict, by plat note and/or other legally acceptable mechanism" the subdivided parcel so that it can only be developed under the AH/PUD zone district criteria, Ms, ~ ~. .,-., 1- Hinrichs notes in her letter that in the past the City has allowed subdivision reviews to proceed to create open space without the receipt orariy GMQS allocations, credits or development rights. INTERPRETATION: The City Land Use Code specifically states that a GMQS exemption or allotment must be sought prior to subdivision. Proposirig an affordable housing project does not guarantee a GMQS exemption, as the development must still be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission, despite the "exempt" status. An argument could be made that affordable housing, like open space, serves a community need, but allowing subdivision of parcel that will never be developed, as is the case \>lith . open space, is very different than a potentially dense AH development. Further, allowing the applicant to rezone and subdivide without Commission examination of such issues as access and site design could result in an untenable project. Therefore, it is the opinion of the staff that a GMQS exemption or allotment must be sought prior to the rezoning and subdivision of the parcel. "" ~"* < i, ~ .,/~ ~ .,.. 'G ~ Q, ~. . J'_ /}... \. /O~ .?", " ". '''tY;.. 4&"<: I.".~ '''''~'Y/ 1- 4oj, "t /<:.:., ~N X,; ~Ol "''*'"", (,'. () " '. ~. c. Xh'lb it C ,""'" HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC January 4, 2000 Ms. Sarah Oates Aspen Zoning Officer . 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Appeal of Formal Code Interpretation Dear Sarah: Thank you for arranging this appeal to City Council on January 24, 2000, and in doing so meeting Nancy Hinrich's and my scheduling needs. Nancy agreed to have a summary of the reasons for filing an appeal request prepared, and this letter is intended to do just that. Please be sure to include the original request, the official interpretation, the appeal request, and this letter in City Council's packets. BACKGROUND To summarize, a formal Interpretation of Title, pursuant to Section 26.306.010 of the Land Use Code, was submitted. It stated that we understand Section 26.47.070(J) and (L) of the Land Use Code to exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) scoring and competition procedures, the development of deed restricted and free market . dwelling units in compliance with the provisions of the Affordable HousingIPlanned Unit Development (AH/PUD) zone district. To provide a parallel example, it was pointed out in our request that the City has, in the past, agreed that subdivision for the sake of creating a dedicated open space parcel (i.e., sterilized from the potential for future development) would not require the receipt of any GMQS allocations, credits, or development rights. THE REQUEST Put into generic terms, the interpretation request asked whether a property owner could subdivide a single lot into two lots (one with the existing development, provided compliance with all dimensional requirements would not be compromised, and the other vacant) and. concurrently rezone the vacant portion to AH/PUD without previously receiving any GMQS allocations. This scenario included a caveat whereby the subdivider would have to willingly restrict, by plat note and/or other legalIy acceptable mechanism, the newly created lot such that it could onlv be developed in accordance with and under the provisions of the AH/PUD zone district. It was further explained that the same restriction could clearly provide that no free market single-family or duplex development rights exist on the created parcel unless developed 201 N.MILLSTREET.SUITE 108' ASPEN.C081611 . (970)925-7819 . FAX(970)925-7395 . . PAGE 1 OF 5 . '. " r"\ ""'" as part of an acceptable AH/PUD development plan (i.e., an ADU or cash-in-lieu would . not provide a GMQS Exemption for the construction of detached or duplex free market dwelling units). Given the two above-described understandings, namely that 1) development in accordance with the AH/PUD zoning is exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, and that 2) the creation of a new lot (via sUbdivision) can occur without any GMQS allocations provided a restriction of some sort is executed to limit the future ability to use the subject property, it would seem reasonable to allow such a scenario as that explained in the preceding paragraph. The intention of the request, therefore, was and is to determine whether or not the City would allow, subject to review, an application to subdivide a single lot into two lots (a developed lot and a vacant lot) and rezone the vacant portion to AH/PUD without first requesting and obtaining a GMQS allocation for the subdivision through the competition and scoring procedures. INTERPRETATION & REASONS FOR APPEALING The interpretation rendered on October 25, 1999, explained that, The City Land Use Code specifically states that a GMQS exemption or allotment must be sought prior to subdivision. Proposing an affordable housing project does not guarantee a GMQS exemption, as the development must still be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission, despite the "exempt" status. It is explained in the interpretation decision memorandum that the above-cited portion of the interpretation decision hinges almost completely upon a reading of Section 26.480.020(B) of the Code. However, I believe an important element of said section was overlooked. The cited section states, in whole, that "No development order jor a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions oj this Chapter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System." The point to be made here is that the subdivision request eXplained above would not need a "development order." . A "Development Order" is defined as, "A written authorization issued pursuant to the terms oj this Title to undertake development." Under the terms of the provided scenario, no development could possibly be undertaken until after an application for, at a minimum, subdivision, PUD, and special review under the AH/PUD zone district regulations is approved by the City. In addition, a strict reading of Section 26.480.020(B) of the Code would also preclude subdivision for the sake of creating a dedicated open space parcel (i.e., sterilized from the 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108' ASPEN.C081611 . (970)925-7819' FAX (970) 925-7395 . . PAGE2oF5 . ,f: .' r"\ . .~ . potential for future development) without first obtaining a GMQS exemption or allotment. No such exemption is specifically provided in the Land Use Code. The fact that "proposing an affordable housing project does not guarantee a GMQS exemption, as the development must still be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission," is exactly the point being made with this request. There is absolutely no potential for harm in allowing the type of subdivision explained above to proceed prior to receipt of a GMQS exemption or allocation --- any development eventually proposed will still require all the necessary prerequisite reviews. The interpretation goes on to state that, "allowing the applicant to rezone and subdivide without Commission examination oj such issues as access and site design could result in an untenable project." This request does not suggest anything of the sort. In fact, the scenario described in this request gives the Commission and the neighbors twice as many chances to review and respond to such concerns. The initial subdivision and rezoning application will be subject to the applicable criteria, as will the eventual development . application. That is, instead of a single set of hearings to review a subdivision, rezoning, PUD, GMQS exemption, and special review application, the scenario described in this request would require a set of hearings for review' of a subdivision and rezoning request and, eventually, another set for review of a subdivision, PUD, GMQS exemption, and special review development application. (PUD review would be required in connection with the AH/PUD zoning; subdivision would likely be required in connection with creation of new lots and/or multi-family housing; GMQS exemption would be required for the units created; and, special review would be required to establish the parking requirements for the affordable housing.) Besides the reasons already explained above for requesting an appeal of the interpretation rendered by the Community Development Department, there are also "practical reasons" and reasons based on "sound planning principles." Practically speaking, the GMQS scoring and competition review standards and submittal requirements would be senseless when applied to the subdivision scenario described in this request since no development would be involved. When simply creating an AH/PUD lot without requesting a development approval, would the request be seeking a residential . allotment? If so, how many? Most of the "application contents" requirements seek answers to questions of "how the proposed development will be . . .," but the request would not involve any development. Architectural drawings, landscape plans, site plans, traffic reports, engineering studies, and the similar are all required, but the scenario described herein would involve nothing more than a proposed plat. The GMQS scoring criteria address such topics as "providing transportation alternatives," "promoting environmentally sustainable development," "maintaining design quality, historic compatibility, and community character," and "revitalizing the permanent 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108' ASPEN.C081611 . (970)925-7819 . FAX(970)925-7395 . . PAGE3oF5. , . f"""\ ,-., community" (which is typically construed to require the provision of affordable housing _ . -- how would an applicant demonstrate that 60% of no bedrooms will be deed restricted as affordable housing? Under the eventual development application prepared pursuant to the scenario described in this request, the development would have to provide 70% of its bedrooms as deed restricted affordable housing). It would be virtually impossible to respond to these standards with an application to create a vacant lot and rezone it to an AH/PUD designation. The eventual "development" application would, however, still have to respond to multiple standards addressing these exact issues by virtue of subdivision and PUD reviews. When rendering a decision, I ask that you please keep in mind that, as mentioned above, the subdivision would have to include a restriction, by plat note and/or other legally acceptable mechanism, whereby the newly created lot could only be developed in accordance with and under the provisions of the AH/PUD zone district. Such a proposal, if' approved, would merely defer (but not avoid) the requirements of Section 26.480.020(B) until such time as an actual "development" application is brought before the City. In terms of "sound planning principles," by delivering a favorable decision on this appeal request, City Council will take a significant step toward the advancement of its and the community's goals relative to affordable housing. It will make possible the clear and official designation of sites for the future development of affordable housing. This type of designation will not be of a simply advisory nature like suggesting sites in a Comprehensive Plan; rather, the type of affordable housing designation that would be made possible with a favorable interpretation to this request would be official and mandatory. We routinely zone sites where we would like to eventually see commercial development accordingly --- why not do the same for affordable housing? Why continue to leave the entire housing program subject to site acquisition followed by an eventual rezoning application to accompany a development plan? Why preclude the possibility of creating a parcel and rezoning it to AH/PUD prior to the preparation of a development plan, especially since the review criteria for the rezoning request will ensure that the AH/PUD zoning is appropriate for the given location? Why not have vacant sites on the City's. Official Zoning Map designated as AH/PUD? The reasons for allowing this to occur are innumerable, and I cannot think of a single reason for precluding it. Finally, I ask that you consider this request in general terms. The decision will result in policy that would affect all properties in the City of Aspen with the potential to subdivide off a vacant lot for the development of affordable housing. The parcel that served as the catalyst for this request is not important, for its true potential to be subdivided and rezoned to the AH/PUD designation will be decided under specifically applicable subdivision and rezoning request hearings. This would simply provide land owners and 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108. ASPEN.C081611 . (970)925-7819 . FAX (970) 925-7395 . . PAGE4oF5 . . ~. 1""". .~ the City with one not yet existing, win-win option for the potential future use of their lands. For instance, but not to say this is necessarily the appropriate way to proceed with the Bass Park property, a favorable interpretation would allow the City to consider . subdividing Bass Park into two lots and rezoning one as AH/PUD and the other as Park or Open Space, without having to undertake an entire GMQS scoring and competition application to do so. The City could then sell the AH/PUD side to recoup some of its investment and ensure that an affordable housing development would be built without public subsidy. Meanwhile, a Park or Open Space site would be guaranteed as well. While this may not prove to be the right direction for Bass Park, it provides a viable option that does not currently ~xist without a GMQS scoring and competition application. We truly appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion heard by the City Council. In no way do we intend for this appeal to be perceived as an attempt to second guess the Planning Office. Rather, we understand their position to be the result of appropriately taking a conservative approach to reading the language provided in the code and leaving the truly interpretive work to the City Council. We look forward to further explaining these points at the appeal hearing and will be glad to respond to questions of staff and Council. If you need any additional information, please contact me at the phone number provided below. Yours Truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/Principal 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108. ASPEN,C081611 . (970)925-7819 . FAX(970)925-7395 . . PAGE5oF5. ~ ,-.." November 2, 1999 Ms. Nancy Hinrichs 100 North Eighth Street, #2 Aspen, CO 81611 Ms. Julie Ann Woods Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Request for Appeal of Formal Code Interpretation Dear Julie Ann: I recently returned from vacation and received your October 25, 1999 approval of an unfavorable interpretation of my request. As you may remember, I requested a code interpretation seeking the ability to subdivide a property with a concurrent rezoning to AH/PUD along with a restriction against development utilizing any GMQS Exemption other than that allowed for AHlPUD development. The request asked whether this could be done without obtaining a GMQS allocation or exemption for the associated, conditioned subdivision. Ms. Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer, wrote a response which concluded that a GMQS Exemption or allotment must be sought prior to the rezoning and subdivision of the parcel. It is my belief that this position is not in the interest of the community or sound planning principles. Further, can you picture the GMQS allocation application for such a request (i.e., without a development application)? Consequently, I would like to request an opportunity to appeal this decision to City Council with the hope that Council will see the logic behind my suggested approach and recognize that absolutely no harm could come of it. I further request that the hearing for thisappea1 nottake place until January, 2000, so that more of our homeowners will have the opportunity to attend. Once scheduled, I will gladly provide a letter outlining our position. If you need any additional information from me, please contact me by phone at 925-7614, or call Mitch Haas at 925-7819. Sincerely, ~ Villa Condominium Association #;,.. 4"""\. r-.. .~ '. v' ASPEN/PITKlN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of As pen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.470.070(J) & (L) GMQS Exemptions - Lot Split, Section 26.480.020 (B)(Subdivision- Applicability and Prohibitions - Development Allotment) EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 1999 WRITTEN BY: Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer ") " APPROVED BY: ' t rJ -I ('J(J'-.l) L T DATE: I~/J-<~ /~ SUMMARY: Nancy Hinrichs, representative of the Villa of Aspen Condominium Association, submitted a code interpretation request to the Community Development Department on September 22, 1999 to determine if rezoning and the subdivision of the Villas parcel can proceed through the land use review process prior to obtaining the necessary GMQS exemption or development allotment. BACKGROUND: Sections 26.470.070(J) & (L) allow for a GMQS exemption for affordable housing and AH associated housing projects. Section 26.480,020(B), Subdivision - Applicability and Prohibitions - Development Allotments requires that no development order jor a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions oj this Chapter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. The Villas currently own a parcel ofland that has two underlying zoning districts, RMFIPUD and R-15IPUD. The portion zoned RMFIPUD contains 36 towrihouses, and the R-15IPUD portion is undeveloped. The applicant would like to subdivide off the R-15IPUD section and rezone to AHlPUD. Ms. Hinrichs is requesting a code interpretation to determine if rezoning to AHlPUD and subdivision can proceed prior to obtaining a GMQS exemption or allotment. The applicant is willing to "restrict, by plat note and/or ~~~r legally acceptable mechanism" the subdivided parcel so that it can only be developed 7er the AH/PUD zone district criteria. Ms. , , , , ~ ~ ,-., . Hinrichs notes in her letter that in the past the City has allowed subdivision reviews to proceed to create open space without the receipt of any GMQS allocations, credits or development rights. INTERPRETATION: The City Land Use Code specifically states that a GMQS exemption or allotment must be sought prior to subdivision. Proposing an affordable housing project does not guarantee a GMQS exemption, as the development must still be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission, despite the "exempt" status. An argument could be made that affordable housing, like open space, serves a community need, but allowing subdivision of parcel that will never be developed, as is the case with , open space, is very different than a potentially dense AH development. Further, allowing the applicant to rezone and subdivide without Commission examination of such issues as access and site design could result in an untenable project. Therefore, it is the opinion of the staff that a GMQS exemption or allotment must be sought prior to the rezoning and subdivision of the parcel. '" ~4;. ... ~. '," oy//: ;-2: ~ y^~, 0 J'_ ')/-, ':. /1) '...fI:', "'j. '....t9o -1'%'<>#. ,.". ?;} / "'oj, <:-c /~ ~/O :;.0.' />6, l.;<:-o ,()