Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990824ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Bob Blaich, Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners present: Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Ron Erickson, Jasmine Tygre, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney. Steve Buettow was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community Development Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim Semrau will be resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to serve on the Housing Board. He thanked the Commission and stated that he enjoyed the time he spent on the Commission. Jasmine Tygre stated that she had a copy of a mailing from the Maroon Creek Club showing the Sundeck and stated that the Sundeck, Benedict and Aspen Mountain Club were available for private parties for up to 800 guests. She said that her recollection was that the use by private parties would be limited in size and yet they are soliciting large groups. Blaich recalled that limiting the number of people to 500 was discussed, which seemed like a lot. Roger Hunt asked about the schedule not having any meeting on Tuesday, September 14th, was that an error. No, there was no meeting scheduled. Ron Erickson asked Roger Hunt what the current status was of the trail easement behind the Post Office. Hunt replied that the Post Office was working on it and getting back to Nick Adeh on it. He explained that they were supposed to open up the back of the post office for one lane of cars exiting. They would be re-designing the inlets on the access road to Clark's which would be closed off and a new access to the post office parking off of Puppy Smith just west of the road going into Clark's. Bob Blaich asked the status of the security sign code amendment. He said that he thought the signs were required to be setback by a certain date. Hunt asked what finally got approved on the location of the sign on the fence line or on the building. Chris Bendon responded that Apex got a letter from the city attorney requesting the signs be moved back and that it was a homeowners issue. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to direct staff to create a proclamation for Tim Semrau. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Joyce Ohlson stated James Lindt was the new planning technician on staff. She noted that Sarah Oates was in that position previously and Oates moved into the zoning officer position (previously Sara Thomas' position). Ohlson said the county staff requested an additional meeting time for Buttermilk. The commissioners agreed that any Tuesday would work for them. Ohlson said that they were scheduled to meet on the 28th for the Buttermilk Master Plan. Ohlson asked if the Moore PUD could be moved forward to Item #B, the request was based upon handling that rezoning within 90 days of the annexation and it did have to go to council next. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adjust the Moore PUD Rezoning to the second item under the public hearing. Ron Erickson second. ALL IN FAVOR 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Buettow had a conflict with the Bavarian Inn and was excused from the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/20/99): BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Ohlson commented that the staff memorandum, summary of development program, proposed resolution and newly revised plan was in the packet. The applicant provided another revised plan dated 8/24/99. John Sarpa noted that this should reflect the discussions from the last time and the discussions with the neighbors. Ohlson noted that this was the 4th meeting on the Bavarian. At the last meeting the commission directed staff to revise the resolution to reflect the issues and conditions. The revisions were reflected in the resolution regarding additional units, location, preservation of open space, creation of the court yard, addition of S3 units, preservation of trees, and access. There was a recommendation not to allow a structure to be parallel to Bleeker but to add an additional unit and the building orientated toward the alley. More open space was provided and to be more compatible with the neighborhood and potential play area for the residents. Ohlson stated at the planning commission's request there be at least 30 parking spaces provided on the site; they are now providing 33. She noted that was the core of the commissioners' recommendations and was reflected in Resolution #9. She said that staff recommended approval. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Sunny Vann, planner for applicant, noted the revised site plan resulted in housing 43~A employees; it has 40 bedrooms; 19 units and about 33 parking spaces (depending on how the open space was resolved with the landscape plan). He said there was a minimum of 30 parking spaces needed and did not have a problem deferring to P&Z for the number of spaces prior to the final review. Vann stated that story poles were erected and he asked if the poles should remain up for final. Ohlson responded that the poles should remain in preparation for final and the commissioners should visit the site as soon as possible. Vann noted there was a memorandum from Herb Klein that had some additional clarifications to add to the resolution. Ohlson remarked that she did not receive the memo and therefore the planning commission had not received it. Sarpa stated that he had discussed the letter with Herb and he said that he was prepared to discuss it with the commissioners. He said the Housing Board recommendations, except for their notation on mitigation of how it can or can't be used, were to be addressed by this commission. Ron Erickson said that he agreed with the Housing recommendation that it should not be used for mitigation for Top of Mill or anything else. Sarpa said that it was a decision to be made by council. Ohlson commented that from back notes the planning commission deferred to council since it was their decision. Erickson asked if the date on the resolution, Exhibit A, was to read as this conceptual approval for Bavarian Inn 5 south, 8/24/99. Ohlson relied that it would. Klein said that the conditions needed to be integrated with the site plan and the neighborhood supported this site plan. Ohlson said that she proposed the elimination of"#2a, b & c" because they have been accomplished in the 8/24/99 revised site plan. The discussions of condition revisions were reflected in the resolution and included in the motion. David Brown explained the height specifications of the north units and the south units were at 20 feet; the west units (w units) were 25 feet. One 3-story structure was proposed, the west units. Klein requested that the absolute height be included in the resolution. Klein asked that the alley circulation be included in the resolution also, so it did not go through the west-end of the neighborhood, only emergency access. He said if the fire marshal didn't require the emergency access, then they would request a vacation of that end of the alley so it would not be used as access. Hoefer stated that vacation was a council decision. Roger Hunt stated that he would strongly recommend not vacating the alley. He said the traffic flow was self-eliminating and it would be unnecessary to vacate that end of the alley. Hoefer noted the fire equipment had to have room to turn around. Vann said from the applicant's perspective, it's always our understanding that we would try to limit access from 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 the west. Vann noted that as far as the vacation, that was an issue for the neighbors to take-up with city council. He said that the access from the east has been a representation made by this applicant during this process. Klein requested adequate signage to discourage people from driving around. Erickson noted that it was his understanding that 8th Street would be closed off when the straight-shot into town was done, so it would be a cul-de-sac or a dead end. Erickson said that with the amount of trees and to drive around the to the west-end would be more of an effort and therefore less used. He said that he did not want to completely eliminate the west-end access for emergency access. Klein said that people who live at the Bavarian now drive through that west-end of the alley and they don't need to but they do. Blaich said that the west-end alley issue of access by emergency access was heard and will be reflected in the resolution. Klein stated the spruce trees on the south side needed to be protected; the landscape plan included mitigation for 3 years but, because of their size it might take longer than 3 years to find out that they were killed during construction. Klein requested the trees be maintained in their perpetuity as a condition. He said the trees were 50 or 60 feet and provided screening. Vann responded that in principal there was not a problem; there was a 3-year financial guarantee for any proposed new landscape plan. Vann said they were required to protect those existing trees during construction and the parks department would require mitigation but not in perpetuity as a condition. Klein requested that there be some trees there in perpetuity that were at least 20 feet tall. Hoefer stated that could not be a requirement from a board, but if the applicant wanted to agree to that they could, but doubted it. Vann responded that they would not do that, but would do what they were required to do with a financial guarantee on any new installation of trees and protect any other trees that were identified on the landscape by the parks department. Once this project was finished it would be sold and become a condo association and Savannah would be gone. Blaich said that it has been made very clear from the legal point of view and that it would be up to the applicant, neighborhood and parks department to be worked out. Klein stated concern for the trees being damaged by the garbage trucks because of the dumpsters located in that area. Vann responded that the dumpsters will be addressed as part of the site plan. Klein thanked the board for allowing the applicant the opportunity to work so well with the neighborhood. Nancy Hendricks, Villas of Aspen, stated that she was pleased and welcomed seeing the detail with the dumpsters position and the lighting. Blaich noted there were lighting codes that would have to be conformed to in the code for this project. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Phil Rothblum, public, asked about a compactor. Vann replied that it would have to comply with the city's dumpster regulations in effect at the time of the project. Vann said the size of the dumpsters was gauged on the frequency of the pick-up; there were no plans for compaction unless it was a city requirement at that time. Hunt noted the changes in the resolution (as stated in the motion). MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend that the Aspen City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development proposed on Lots D through I, Block 11, and Lots K through P, Block 12, City and townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. (Parcel No. 2735.123.08.004)with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department, finding the criteria have been met and subject to the following conditions: 1. If the requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-MF/PUD is not approved, this Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. 2. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Site Development Plan shall be revised as follows, with final determination to be made at Final PUD review: a. The Bleeker Street frontage of the property shall remain undeveloped (with the exception of N1) to serve as a play area, court yard and open space. Trees located outside of the areas designated for driveway, sidewalk and parking shall be preserved with final determination to be made by the Parks Department. b. Parking shall meet as closely as possible with the off-street parking standards of Section 26.515, however; a minimum of 30 parking spaces shall be allocated for the entire PUD. c. Vehicular access to parking shall be signed in order to limit access to the development from the Bleeker Street and from the east end of the alley, with the exception of the existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. d. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh Street shall be restricted to right-in and right-out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street, the Seventh/Main Street intersection has been signalized, and traffic volumes on Seventh have decreased, the right-in and right-out only restriction may be removed after further analysis by the City's staff upon application for an insubstantial PUD amendment to allow left turn movements to and from the alley. 3. All buildings shall have flat roofs. Heights must comply with the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation and specifically, the N1/N2 building complex and S1-S5 bulding complex shall not exceed 20 feet in height to the top of the roof, and the W2-W5 complex shall not exceed 25 feet in height to the top of the roof. 4. The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified in accordance with the changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing the proposed landscape plan for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work cooperatively with the City Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. The plan shall also demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shall provide plans or documents describing provisions for the on-going maintenance of all common areas and for ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. 5. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting plan which illustrates that any outdoor lighting used on the subject property will not cause glare or hazardous conditions, that all outdoor lighting shall be of a down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures and indicate that outdoor flood lights are 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 prohibited. 6. The Final PUD shall meet all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems, and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Proposed snow storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. 7. The Final PUD shall include a Special Review application for parking addressing the specific off-street parking requirements of Section 26.515 of the Municipal Code. The Final PUD shall also address variations to the Open Space requirements and address the variation to the required rear yard setback for the current nonconforming condition of the existing Bavarian Lodge building. 8. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including proposed easements; a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PM10 mitigation plan; a fugitive dust control plan and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestos inspection of the Bavarian Inn and its associated out- buildings as completed by a person licensed by the State of Colorado; a draft plat and Subdivision/PUD Improvements Agreement; and, any other reports identified by the City Engineer as necessary for a full evaluation of the proposed development. 9. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicable fees) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant may pay the recordation fee to the City Clerk, who will record the Resolution. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Sarpa stated that he thought the process was a good one with the neighborhood input and the commissioners' comments. Tygre said that the applicant was certainly responsive to the neighbors' requests. PUBLIC HEARING: MOORE PUD REZONING Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Stephanie Millar introduced herself as the long-range planner for the city. Millar said this was a standard statutory requirement after a property was annexed into the city; it had to be rezoned to city zoning within 90 days. She noted a change to the memo and resolution, which was reflected in the motion. David Hoefer requested the public notice. Millar provided that notice. Millar explained the R-15 parcels were the affordable housing parcels, which would provide more density. The zoning changes would not have a great affect on this property because the PUD would over-ride. Joyce Ohlson said for background on this property the PUD was adopted as it was placed on it and any revisions would have to go through a PUD amendment 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 process. She stated that in a sense they were locked into the development pattern, densities along with the county's approval of that full PUD. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend to City Council the Rezoning of the Moore PUD Subdivision (Parcel #273514112150) finding the criteria have been met with Aspen Planning and Zoning Resolution # 23-99; was annexed into the City of Aspen on June 28, 1999 pursuant to Resolution 42, Series of 1999; and, the property is approximately 215 acres, the adopted PUD will continue to control the uses and variances allowed on the property; and trails, paths and walkways as identified in the final recorded plat are considered accessory uses to the permitted uses in the zone district; and the uses in the Conservation and Parks zone districts are further limited by the James E. Moore Family LLLP Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated August 10, 1998 (also known as the Moore Playing Fields Agreement); Blocks shall be zoned as follows: Block A, C, D and F: R-15, Block B: PUB, Block E: R-30, Block G: R-30, Open Space Areas 1 - 12, and Lot 2, Parcel A: Conservation Lot 1, Parcel A: Park Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. The agenda was switched since some members of the public were sent away until after 6 p.m. for the Lodge public hearing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/03/99): ADU CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon pointed out the intent of this revised program was to be more effective requiring mandatory occupancy. A guaranteed quality of the units with minimum design standards was added and a simpler approval process allowing the approval of ADUs by the Community Development Director instead of the conditional use review at the P&Z. These were the 3 objectives that Council and the Commission directed staff to return with code amendments. Bendon noted that the ADU portion was in one section of the code rather than scattered throughout. The changes to the section follow. The Growth Management exemption required ADUs to be occupied. He said that ADUs have a low rate of occupancy now (about 25%). Jasmine Tygre asked how the occupancy was to be enforced. Bendon answered that was the critical issue, the applicant would be required to file a deed-restriction on the property for mandatory occupancy, to be enforced by the Housing Authority. Tygre stated that they have found that if the owner of the ADU wanted occupancy then it would be occupied and if they didn't, it wasn't occupied. She said that as a practical matter enforcement was a 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 nightmare and there was no penalty for non-compliance and that this could defeat their good intentions. Bendon responded that this came up a lot with the Housing Authority on the deed-restricted and category housing. He said there was an enforcement officer; there was the ability to fine people and take them to court, even though it was not in the land use code. Erickson said that he thought the Housing Authority was taking giant steps in enforcing deed-restricted housing and agreed that the enforcement should not be in the code. He said that the work on this amendment was good. Hunt asked if registration was required. Bendon replied that it was required. The commissioners agreed that there should be a strengthening of the enforcement by the Housing Authority. Bendon noted that in a prior draft of the amendment there was language regarding enforcement of the deed-restriction and it be incorporated in the contractual agreement. There was discussion of cash-in-lieu, which recommended costs incurred and how it related to actual building costs. Bendon said the design standards were basic and if the standards would not be met, then they would have to go before P&Z. He said there were exceptional standards and there was a requirement for a closet and storage area. He said there was a 300 net livable square footage minimum for an ADU. Bendon noted if an ADU was separate and distinct, then it might not have concerns with the bulk and mass. Herb Klein, public, asked if the new ADU mandatory occupancy only applied for new ADUs or if enforcement would apply to ADUs already in existence. Bendon replied that it would only be for ADUs from this point on, unless that property came in and needed a growth management exemption; if they scraped and replaced then the mandatory occupancy requirement would apply. As a clarifying statement something could be added to the language. Phil Rothblum, public, asked on the applicability subject that this resolution 24-99 what does the ~approved as a conditional use prior to the adoption of Ordinance __, series, 1999" mean. Bendon responded that if you come in to change your ADU that was already approved under the old code, these standards would now apply. David Hoefer said the amendment would not be retroactive. Bendon said the process would go through the community development director and if granted at staff level approval, then it would go on to building permit. This code amendment makes ADUs a permitted use in those zone districts and would have to go before P&Z or HPC if there was a request to amend those design standards. Blaich asked what process would the public have if there was no public hearing, since people come before this commission quite often. Mooney noted that 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 associations often voiced concerns with ADUs. Bendon answered that the staff level review would not be a public hearing and that association covenants were a private issue. Bendon stated that the current program had FAR incentives, this code amendment takes that out. He said the final question was extending the program to other zone districts. The current program extends to all residential zone districts except for R15b, from an annexation agreement, not allowed as a conditional use now. He said what would be most appropriate would be for that zone district to approach the city to change that district. He said the AH1 was to be included in the zone district. Bendon said that a mobile home park did not allow ADUs, this was one of the denser areas of town but re-development of the units could incorporate an ADU through growth management. Roger Hunt asked if the small lot size would allow for the development of an ADU. Jasmine Tygre noted that the people who were living in that area would be the ones that would be happy to re-develop with the additional income of an ADU. Tim Mooney stated that there should be an easy mechanism for the existing illegal ADUs to become legal. Bendon stated there was a process for bandit units to become legal through the community development director with a check for UBC requirements. Mooney asked if this could be taken to the county to amend their code also, especially since housing would now be under the city. He said the Moore property was an example of the county process then annexed to city; we upgrade our codes and they did not. Bendon said that was a good idea especially in the design standards which should be more standardized. Blaich asked what the process would be to get this to the county. Bendon said that it could be included in a resolution. Hoefer noted it should be a separate motion. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-24 recommending the adoption of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program provisions of the land use code pursuant to amendments, with conditions, finding the criteria standards have been met and to include clarification that this is not retroactive to pre-existing units. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Tygre said that Chris has done a terrific job on this amendment and taken the recommendations to heart but she said that the mandatory occupancy would provide resistance to the program. She said there would be an enforcement problem and that ADUs will never be used for mitigation for any growth management. She said that voluntary only ADUs would have been better. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission make a resolution to Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to bring the county land use code in line with the city land use code regarding the Accessory Dwelling Units to the urban metro area. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/20/99): LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Bendon explained that this amendment affected different portions of the code: Growth Management Quota System; Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District; Lodge Definition and Parking Regulations. Roger Haneman asked if the condominization included fractional ownership. Bendon replied that the code did not provide for fractional ownership. He said that when the subdivision code revisions are addressed they will refer to the Kiowa statutes that were adopted 6 years ago, but currently were not included in the zoning. Bendon said time-shares were covered. Herb Klein, attorney representing a couple of lodges, commented that the definition of lodge was now combined with hotel and there were problems with that. The concern was that hotels could not have kitchens and lodges can have kitchens. Klein said by combining the hotel and lodge definition, the proposed code language says that certain zones can have kitchens but there was nothing that talks about lodges having kitchens in certain rooms. He said this would create a lot of confusion because every zone district would have to be changed and showed an example on Exhibit D, the LP overlay zone. Klein said that the master lease isn't defined in the code. He said it wasn't clear if the mitigation credits included parking; many of the lodges did not have enough parking. Blaich asked why lodges in other zone districts would not be allowed kitchens. Bendon stated that under the supplementary it defined where those districts were that allowed kitchens. Roger Hunt answered that kitchens in lodges came as a benefit to mostly LP lodges or L3, to be able to market more than someone would get in the commercial zone. Hunt said the worry back then was that there would be pressure to convert some of the lodging inventory into condominiums. Blaich noted that the way this was defined, it would not be allowed. Hunt said the whole idea was to make hotel rooms less attractive to condominimize as a live-in facility. Tim Mooney commented that they would be in the LP zone district and what they 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 were doing to catch up to what was done in the LP zone. Klein said that was also to help the tourist have a more affordable experience, being able to cook in their room. Klein said it would be nice to have a cross-reference in the revision. Jack Simmons, Holland House Ski Lodge, stated that they were not in the LP zone. Yasmine DePagter, Holland House, stated that they were totally non-conforming. Simmons asked if some underlying zoning would need to be tweaked before the overlay were placed because of the non-conformities. Bendon said that the PUD automatically identified all of those non-conforming. Bendon said that was the purpose of the original LP zone. The Holland House was in the original LTR, which allows a lodge. DePagter asked if these cases would come up individually because a lot of these lodges were unique properties and would they be able to go through special review to change the zoning. Bendon answered that if they would become members of the LP Overlay then yes, they would be able to apply through that minor PUD process and establish FAR, setback, height, zoning and parking a negotiative process with P&Z and then City Council. DePagter noted that they did come in at the eleventh hour but asked if the affordable housing was interconnected to small lodge preservation and she said that she did not understand how those two correlated. She commented that if the small lodge became affordable housing, then the small lodge would be eliminated and asked how the small lodge could be helped. Bendon responded that there were debates at work sessions with Council and P&Z on the small lodge and affordable housing merits. He said that in the LP zone affordable housing would remain a conditional use requiring review by P&Z. Bendon stated that there was much discussion regarding the affordable component for lodges. Simmons asked if the 11-unit yearly allotment was per property or for the whole town. Bendon answered it was for the whole town. Simmons noted the change in use for the Alpine Lodge, Fireside, Ullr, Aspen Inn, Bell Mt were a few lodges that were no longer used as lodges. He asked if those lodge rooms could be thrown into the pot for the small lodges to utilize for additional rooms. Simmons said that those small lodge guests were now calling them for rooms and they do not have enough rooms. Bendon noted that unfortunately the growth management system did not account for negative growth or lost lodge rooms. Erickson said there were 380 rooms lost according to the ACRA. Bendon said there was no mechanism for growth management to add back the lost units. He noted that there were 27 units that weren't used plus the 11 = 38. He said that there was interest for the addition of rooms to some small lodges and the allotment did not necessarily have to be a limiting factor for the small lodges. Blaich asked what the option was to change the number through GMQS. Bendon said the whole GMQS will be an issue after the adoption of the AACP because growth was such an issue and it also involves the county. Roger Hunt noted the option of going into future allotments. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Simmons said that to build a lodge today the ADA becomes involved and it force the little lodges to be bought and re-developed into a condominium instead. He asked how do all of those lost lodge units get put back. He said they had a viable small lodge and could add 6 more units but the FAR probably wouldn't allow any addition. DePagter said the lodge rooms become a change in use when converted into condominiums, which becomes a dilemma. Simmons asked if the special review process had enough flexibility to possibly change their FAR so that properties could still operate as a small lodge. He said the difference between 20 and 25 rooms was a huge economic boom. Bendon said the number of units cannot be amended through a PUD, you can't amend growth management. He said the question was what that number should be set at. Bendon noted that the loss of over 300 units was not reflected in the 11 units allotted per year. Bob Morris, Hotel Aspen and Aspen Mt. Lodge, said that Chris has done a really good job. Morris said that in trying to create an environment that will help the small lodges that would be the ability to add rooms. He said they could come in with a really good PUD. He noted they take all kinds of renters: employees, people looking for permanent housing, for long-term or short-term; he wanted the ability to be flexible. Morris stated that as the market changes all the time, people ask for rooms with kitchens; he said that he would like to be able to provide that for those people. He said this was a precious vacation for people and the length of rentals has become shorter, from 7 to 3 or 4 days. Bendon stated that the parking was only required on site for new impacts. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend proceedings for 15 minutes. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 6-0. Erickson asked if the underlying allotment were to be increased, what was to stop a big hotel (Aspen Mt. PUD) from coming in and taking all of the allotments. Bendon responded that those weren't LP; the whole LP programs was to create a separate bucket from the corporate projects that were just for LP projects. Erickson said wasn't the lodge program that just ended for the conversion of lodges using those allocations for someone else to pick-up; they haven't been picked-up, the city tried to help. He said that they were not loosing growth because the replacement units were condominium not lodges. Erickson said that the PUD process would be the way to go through the review process with P&Z. Morris said that this new PUD allowed them to make a more beneficial presentation. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 Hunt said that the underlying zoning for the Holland House was LTR that was not a non-conforming use but rather a non-conforming structure. Bendon said that the LP Overlay could be applied to the Holland House. Mooney said that he didn't think that this re-structuring was for the twilighting of the LTR zone district. Bendon said this was for the small lodges to keep in operation and allow them to adjust to the current market conditions even if it included total demolition and replacement to be able to accommodate what the market wanted. This was meant to encourage small lodges with incentives of a more flexible process rather than the 3-year LTR program. Klein said that anyone could apply for the LP zone. Haneman asked if a lodge wanted to expand onto an adjoining lot, how would that work. Erickson answered that it would be part of a PUD. Bendon replied that the expansion would be allowed when compatible with neighboring properties and with incentive for upgrade of existing lodges on site or adjacent properties. Bendon stated there were five amendments: ~ change lodge definition to allow kitchens in LP zone; © remove "master" from lodge definition, ® replace "in areas" with "on properties" in purpose of zone district; ® add last phrase of old purpose statement to new purpose statement "and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties," and ® add "posting and mailing" to noticing requirements for growth management exemption. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-22 as amended in the discussions; recommending City Council amend the Growth Management Quota System Section 26.470 of the Land Use Code; approve an amendment to the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District Section 26.710.320; approve an amendment to the definition of "Lodge" Section 26.104.100 of the Land Use Code; and approve an amendment of the Off-Street Parking Regulations Section 26.515.030 of the Land Use code, finding that the criteria have been met. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Hunt said that he wanted the original reason for the lodge preservation known that it was for properties that were not in the lodge underlying zoning. Blaich thanked the public for their contributions. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24~ 1999 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................ 2 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 2 MOORE PUD REZONING ................................................................................................................................. 6 LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT .......................................................................................... 10 14