Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990601ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Bob Blaich, Chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at d~d0 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Steve Buettow, Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Tim Semrau and Roger Haneman present. Ron Erickson was excused. Staff in attendance were~ David Hoe£er, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; and Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Tim Mooney stated that he could not be at the DP, AC meeting on Thursday. Joyce Ohlson noted that she would contact the I-tPC DP, AC members. Jasmine Tygre stated that 3 people contacted her voicing opposition to the convenience store at 7th and Main. She noted that the concerns were that the housing/day care tax was voted for housing and not stores. Tygre said that she asked these people who were in jeopardy of loosing their housing to go on record at public meetings with their concerns and they were afraid that by going on record it would count against them by the housing authority. Bob Blaich quoted Rachel Richards from a newspaper article "we had a slightly more extensive presentation on the idea than the planning and zoning commission and hoped that they take a second look". He asked what else was left out and if Council knew that P&Z voted unanimously against the store; he also said that he did not know if that was an accurate quote. Ohlson said that the overview that Lee Novak gave was more of an opportunity to say what the commission liked or did not want to see at 7th and Main. She said some of the thoughts that probably were not shared with this commission were from the AACP. Ohlson said that Community Development presented a short slide presentation with regards to employee housing and mixed use. Chris Bendon stated that the commercial area at 7th and Main could benefit the community and staff knew that this would be a lengthy process. He said it would probably be controversial with the commercial component. He said it did reduce the number of employee units by one and community development wished they had included P&Z with the information. Bendon said that they let Council know that P&Z was not in favor of the commercial aspect and that P&Z did not receive the presentation. Novak said that last week they presented to Council basically the same design issues and some contracts on 7th and Main. He said that he was clear with Council on the P&Z issues and public issues. He said that Council was clear that Housing Funds couldn't be used for the commercial. He said the concern for the loss of the 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 unit was passed on but Council felt the overall benefit to the community was more important. He said that Council did want more density and gave a great amount of feedback. Novak said that he valued the P&Z input and hoped to keep the lines of communication open. Tygre asked if the city was committed to this design company. Buettow asked what the process was for selection. Novak replied that he was satisfied with them and advertised with a 5-member selection panel. Tygre stated that when the design team was chosen it would come before P&Z as part of the public record. Blaich stated a competition would be the best was to choose a design team and council supported that in the past. Tygre clarified that when working with a "public project" the proper procedures should be followed to avoid problems. Blaich suggested checking with other cities for their design competition procedures. Roger Hunt stated a chicken coop was what we would see as the first thing coming into town. He said if Council was forging ahead on with scenario "A" that was a problem. Mooney said if a store goes in there and then goes bankrupt because it can't compete as a 7/11. He said if it was given a chance and failed, then it could be utilized as housing. Blaich asked how large the commercial space was. Novak responded that it was 500 net leaseable. Buettow reiterated that a small design competition could benefit a small project like this one. Blaich asked staff about the DEPP project and asked if it was postponed because of the public objections. Bendon replied that it would be done after the summer. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, introduced Roger Haneman as the new P&Z member. MINUTES Postponed to next meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow disclosed a conflict on the Bavarian Inn. PUBLIC HEARING: 308 NORTH FIRST STREET, ADDITION to INVENTORY of HISTORIC SITES and STRUCTURES Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated the affidavit of notice was received and this item was being continued until July 6, 1999. Amy Guthrie stated this was initiated by the city and the request to continue was so that the property owner could attend the hearing. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for 308 North First Street, addition to inventory of historic sites and structures, to accommodate the applicant to July 6, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/18/99): 488 CASTLE CREEK REZONING Chris Bendon stated the applicant wished to remove the item from the public hearing and will re-notice sometime in July. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to remove the 488 Castle Creek Rezoning public hearing from the agenda. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7- 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME RANCH REZONING Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record that proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME RANCH REZONING BOB BLAICH: We are back on with Burlingame, Chris. DAVID HOEFER: For the record, proof of notice has been provided for the Burlingame Ranch Rezoning. The proof of notice meets the jurisdictional requirements of this board and you may proceed. CHRIS BENDON: This is a public hearing to rezone the Burlingame Ranch. As you may be aware, the city has recently annexed the Burlingame Ranch. The ranch was purchased by the city and was originally a 224 acre parcel. The county expressed concern about annexing land that was over the ridge, if you will, into Owl Creek drainage and requested the city not annex the parcel of land. That was the parcel that was expected to be sold off as a free-market development right to help pay for the purchase of the ranch. So there is a 37-acre parcel here that is not part of this annexation and not part of this rezoning that remains in the county. JASMINE TYGRE: Was it part of the purchase. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 BENDON It was part of the purchase. It was part of the ranch and so this is a new parcel line basically along the ridge. TYGRE When you say 224 acre parcel does that include that 37 or not. BENDON No, it does. The 224 was the entire ranch, 37 acres is taken off of that, so that approximately 187. Of that there's approximately 9 that's within the street rights of way, that are not coded here but extended this dotted line. The zoning as it exists in the county was split between AFR2 and AFR10. These are fairly low density, low impact, primarily residential and some farming use zone districts. The 2 and 10 is the density, 2 acre and 10 acres for a single family house. This green here is the 10 acre and this is all of Deer Hill and the brown is AFR2, primarily the area covered by the runway protection zone with an additional portion over here on the western side and the back bowl area which was AFR2. This zoning has been placed for quite some time, this is from 1974. This is at a different scale you can pick out the ranch here. This is just the eastern portion, there was some question as to when the zoning was actually in place. The names have changes, there is an AFR2 but its basically the same thing. This is a 2 acre zoning, that's included the whole bowl, in the same designation here, the topography. Then this is an AFl which was one unit per 10-acre zoning. So it's the same zoning, that's existing. The zoning that was provided in the county, what we are suggesting is very much similar, it's a split between conservation zone and rural residential zone. Conservation for the entire western portion and for the extended Deer Hill and rural residential for the development pods that were identified when the city was considering purchasing the parcel. The permit process, when the city was looking at was to look at the parcel for development opportunities. Four development opportunities were identified, they described them as parcels A, B, C & D. Parcel A is this back bowl area, that is somewhat flat, its on the far eastern portion; that was parcel A. Parcel B was this portion here just north of Maroon Creek Club Affordable Housing, also another flat area. And parcels C & D are really essentially one parcel, closer to the ABC and along the highway. The remainder of the parcel is either encumbered by steep slopes as in Deer Hill here, or the face of this slope here or encumbered by the runway protection zone, were not identified at that time as development opportunities. The parcel A has been discussed as a potential affordable housing project for Burlingame Village, either as a stand alone project in that area there or in combination with projects with the Zoline family and possibly the Land Trust, 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 that's by definition up in the air. There's really no resolution to that yet. This zoning application does not consider the outcome of that. The parcel B is currently under review, that's the Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project. In that application there's a request to rezone the property to RMFA zone district, we are suggesting rural residential, in this rezoning application. That is, it's primarily a timing issue, we need to provide zoning to this land within 90 days and we don't want to be tied to an approval that may or may not happen, may be delayed, so the resolution is specifically worded so that the zoning will be rural residential unless otherwise approved. So that the Burlingame Seasonal Housing is either denied or delayed there is a zoning in place in the 90 days to meet the statutory requirements. The Deer Hill and the steep slopes that I mentioned we are proposing for the conservation zone. This is a point of reference the conservation zone is the closest zone we have to the ARF10, it's a 10-acre zoning. Rural residential is the closest we have to AFR2, 2-acre residential. Both of those zone allow similar uses, crop production, animal husbandry, so on as allowed in the county. So it's very much the most similar zoning in the city as was provided in the county. The remaining portion, there's approximately 9 acres in the highway 82 right-of-way, jurisdictions differ whether they zone rights-of-way or not; we do. We typically zone whatever the adjacent parcels are, if they're different on either side, we zone to the centerline. So there's language in the resolution that essentially does that. There are no development rights associated with rights-of-way and with state highway we have literally no say. One thing is clear that no one is going to be building houses in there no matter what the zoning is. So, it really doesn't make too much difference other than what we tell them that .... That's what we provide. With that we are recommending approval. I do have in the resolution, you may have seen, the draft resolution provides legal description of the different zoning areas, Jim's here, Jim's working on those middle descriptions to describes those areas, there not parcel boundaries but provide the map maker with the exact location of those boundaries. BLAICH Questions from the commission. Roger. ROGER HUNT Yes, why was zoning-wise the two parcels, the bowl and the MAA site, why are they separated zoning-wise now? Before they were connected. BENDON Before they were, this area was AFR10. HUNT The question is then why didn't you continue it along those lines, and add that portion that was AFR10 to the same BENDON Just extend this up, is that what you're saying? 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 BENDON This area along here, you can see the topo lines, is actually very steep. The tow of the slope as Deer Hill comes down, that's HUNT Okay, what are we talking about right-of-ways in that area and how does that change the zoning that you proposed change the right-of-ways? BENDON The right-of-ways to access? The areas behind here. HUNT Yeah BENDON That right-of-way would be allowed in that conservation zone and if there needs to be a special accommodation, to accommodate a specific development plan, then they'll have that at the time of actual development. This was really for the purpose of identifying development areas, if the access comes around from the back or comes around from the front, there may need to be a zoning adjustment. The conservation zone allows for that. The zoning within rights-of-way is really pretty effective, one reason we suggested conservation is that it is not as limiting as open space, which is a severely limiting type of zone district. It allows a paved or unpaved footpath, it allows a bench, it doesn't allow a lot of uses. There are communication facilities that used to be operated by United on the top of Deer Hill, they're not currently used and they have indicated that they are going to remove them. I don't know if they are or not, but we wanted the conservation zone to allow for any kind of future use of communication wise up there as well, which that does. It's a little bit more open zone district. HUNT What is the zoning of the Zoline property, adjacent to this. BENDON Zolines actually, that's shown, I think they are ARF2. Yeah, Zolines is AFR2, this is basically the top of the bank as id comes down into Maroon Creek. HUNT Okay, so then are, you say that the brown zoning, the new rezoning is most equivalent to the AFR2, is that it. BENDON Right, it's a 2 acre residential zone. Some the accessory uses are a little bit different, just in varying degrees. But it essentially allow crop production, animal husbandry, accessory farm structures and those types of things. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 The typical highest and best use is the 2-acre residential and that's consistent. Actually the AFR2 in the county allows for homes of 15,000. Tim MOONEY I'm wondering if it really makes sense to rezone this residential, the bowl area without having any access to it. BENDON The parcel itself has access because it's an undivided parcel. MOONEY Where would the access be to the RR section to the bowl. BENDON Well, the access would either be here or within the agreement with the Land Trust. But the parcel itself is an undivided parcel so it has access rights because it has continuity with the public right-of-way. MOONEY The RR doesn't though. BENDON No, it doesn't but the parcel as a whole, the zoning boundaries do not define parcel boundaries. So the parcel as a whole has access. MOONEY So, within the conservancy zoning are you permitted to create an access to a residential development. BENDON What I was describing before was that most likely, we get a development application for this, there would be access one way or another. There might at the time be a special accommodation for the right-of-way. There might be a zoning change. There does not have to be a zoning change because zoning within rights-of-way is neither here nor there, it's a right-of-way. The commercial core extends to the centerline of Galena, it doesn't mean that you can build a building on Galena. HOEFER But the right-of-way can cross the C zone. BENDON The importance of the Conservation Zone is that respects the topography of the land, so that all of these steep areas where you wouldn't want development. You wouldn't want the housing, the parking; it wouldn't allow that. It doesn't, it doesn't, if your concern is that it would not permit the right-of-way, it's not that it will not permit it, it will still allow the right-of-way to go through there. I don't know if I made that completely clear. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 MOONEY Well, it's just obviously that we're zoning something residential that is land locked. BENDON It's not a parcel boundary. The parcel remains as one entire parcel. So the zoning boundary does not create a parcel boundary. The zoning differentiates the land that's appropriate for varying ranges of developments. So the conservation zone still does allow a certain amount of development but at a lesser intensity. A 1 O-acre zoning vs. a 2-acre zoning. And in fact those development pods, might come in for a higher density development, which could be re-reviewed considering that specific development plan. At this point because we don't have a specific development plan it's hard to judge whether the level of development in a higher density development zone district would work. Right. So this merely kind of describes the areas based on their development ability. HUNT Does the arc of parcel 1 prevent houses from being nestled in the base of the hill. Or the arc at the base of the hill so that houses cannot be nestled into the hill. BENDON No, you could, it merely differentiates the intensity of the development. HUNT I understand that, but if you wanted to put housing there, and nestled a bunch of housing into the base of the hill. My point is that arc that is shown, is it shown in effect the base of the hill or does it go up the hill slightly so the houses can be nestled into it. BENDON I see what you're saying. The arc is based on that base of the hill. The topography breaks and goes up the hill. HUNT So then you put a house at the base of the hill and the hill goes up here, and propose to nestle the houses here. BENDON It doesn't determine the exact location of. What it describes as the flatter land can accommodate more development, the steeper land can accommodate less development. Where that development actually happens, in other word you get less density credit for this land than you do for this land. You get one unit per 2- acres here; you get one unit for 10-acres here. You can still nestle it into the mountain side but you get less density credit before that in your zoning. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 TIM SEMP, AU Chris, is it correct that i£ a PUD comes in on this that they don't have to stick with these boundaries anyway, they ask to change them. BENDON Yes, this is really fixed to accommodate the 90-day statutory requirement. I£ we get a development plan that shows house into this zone and there's general consensus that's a much better plan, then the zoning boundary would accommodate that and probably go up on a higher topography. This is almost kind o£ an in-between state, i£ development applications come in, although it does provide a static state i£ those development applications either don't come in or are not approved. HUNT What was the rationale for the flag pole? BENDON Jim provided this. I think this is to, because there's very steep slopes in here, as they come down, it's still very steep on the property here, to accommodate the ability to put in a right-o£-way i£ it goes back to the Land Trust. HUNT You see a little incongruity with the argument on the lower part. BENDON Yes, I do but let me say this, the design does not predict or prevent any access. In other words, this zone, i£ you want to, you could zone this conservation, you could just lop this off right here. In £act this is £airly steep back here and you probably wouldn't want houses coming back this £ar into here. I understand what you are saying and I agree. It doesn't predict or prevent any type o£ access. The £act that it does have a flagpole here and not here doesn't mean anything. SEMP, AU Chris, is there a down-side to zoning the whole thing conservation. Pending any PUD that comes in has to change it anyway, correct. BENDON Yes, it would have to change it either way. We want to stay as much as we could with the county zoning and especially in the areas that are being considered £or potential development to reflect as close as we can what the county provided. The entire area, in this area here, that's encumbered by the runway protection zone was also 2-acre housing. Which we £elt wasn't really appropriate, seeing as the airport won't let you develop there anyway. The most development that might happen there would be soccer field or some sort o£ £airly, no structures or habitations allowed there. So that's the only thing that we are really changing significantly. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 SEMtL~U O.K. let me see if I have this right. If we approve this zoning and there is no PUD, then we are giving those brown parcels by right certain development rights, correct. BENDON In a sense, yes; also in a sense they would have to come through Growth Management. SEMRAU~ I see, but we are giving them vested development rights with this zoning. BENDON In a sense, yes, in as much as zoning provides you vested rights here. SEMRAU Correct, they just have to follow the requirements of what it takes to build something given that zoning. BENDON This is, the parcel has, the entire parcel had one development right, because it's an undivided parcel. And the development right is going to be used for this free-market house here. So basically this parcel here has no development right, unless they go through Growth Management. Then they would have a right by exemption. BLAICH Jim, you had your hand up, do you have a point of clarification. JIM CURTIS I was just going to clarify, Roger's comment, this flagpole situation, actually it should come down, but there is a comparable topographic break here, as to the topographic break here, that is not there via access, it was working with the same topographic break. HUNT So it was a device to get a buildable area. BLAICH Useable area. CURTIS Consistent with the common line of the topographic ..... MOONEY I'm looking at the airport restricted area, and wondering about the layout of that and design that because it doesn't seem to be any kind of symmetrical configuration according to the lines of the runway. And if that was discretionary or if there's a formula that creates that zone. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 BENDON Yes, there's a rather intense formula. The FAA does it and it's based off the approach and departure runway. You can see the centerline here. There's a couple of different zones that they describe, some are square and some are rectangular. They also have different slope pitches and so on, that describe, it actually is symmetrical. MOONEY Doesn't that put this triangular MAA piece easily in the BENDON It does, it does. As you can see here it does nip the edge of that. The MAA proposal is outside of that, it' back in this area here. MOONEY So shouldn't that reflect that. BENDON Not necessarily, you can't build in it. The FAA isn't going to approve anything in there period. The area though is flat enough that you could take the density from, which would be, ½ a unit, which is not that much and build it here. The reason we proposed this as a development pod is that you could develop back here using the density for this whole area. SEMRAU Chris, isn't the topography in this section too steep in here also for any development. BENDON It is fairly steep back in here, yes. SEMRAU So, is there any reason you included this section even though its too steep like the other section that are in that conservation district. BENDON I think Jim was using this same topography line that were used around here. This area is obviously flat and this gets fairly steep. You might be able to accommodate a couple units in here. SEMRAU Jim, do have an answer for that. CURTIS Tim, I think you are correct in being more consistent you would probably break that pod into two different pods where the topographic come. The reason they are a single pod is basically, at a prior P&Z work session, it was to keep some flexibility should BMC West ever relocate their facility. But to go back to your original question, probably would be more consistent to break them into two pods. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 SEMtL~U And the reason not for that, because BMC may want to expand and therefore the city may want to sell them the land. Is that what you are saying. CURTIS No, exactly the reverse. BMC may want to sell their land and that land around it might be suitable for some form of housing development. That was a comment made by a prior P&Z member. HUNT Could you point out the upper bowl on that for me. The so called upper bowl. There was talk, the conservation people, in order to get conservation on the back bowl, would do something. The upper bowl portion. BENDON Yes that was mostly on Zoline property, a small amount on Land Trust and so it's basically here. There's only a few acres, 5-acres maybe on city property, 5 or 10 on Land trust and the majority was on Zoline. HUNT And your circular finger there, is that more or less the area that the early Burlingame proposal that we saw was going to be located. Or would you circle it now. BENDON Yes, as I saw it and I'm sure it was the same one you saw was generally in this area here. It was mostly taking advantage of the flatter topography of the Zoline property, which is actually, roughly the same topography as this back bowl area but there was some wildlife and preservation concerns associated with that, so it was generally in this area. HUNT So actually the area that we have indicated for housing on this zoning, is the upper bowl portion that the Land Trust would like to get it's clutches on. BENDON This area here, yes. SEMRAU Chris, can I ask you a question for general interest. This area here, outside the runway, is this a possible site for the mythical remote parking lot. Laughter SEMRAU I mean this is usable land here because it's outside it. So, this is not actually very good for residential because of the airport The famous parking lot that nobody can find a spot for. It's possible, isn't it. BLAICH It's called the Roger Hunt Memorial Parking Lot. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 BENDON Yes, I think the runway, outside of these lines have elevation or slope. It couldn't be too high, but a parking structure couldn't be more than surface parking. SEMRAU Underground, of course. BENDON Like everything else in town. There are just some general concerns HUNT That probably has to do with elevation from the projection of the runway also. BENDON Yes, from the end of the runway they project a 1 to 100 slope or something. SEMRAU So, if the city decided to try parking here, there's nothing that's going to preclude that, right. In this area. BLAICH There might be some problems with some uses. For example if you were going to use it as a parking lot, you want to have lighting there or the lights of the cars coming in facing the runway, there might be, somebody has to investigate that. The FAA might say that you can do this and you can't do that. SEMRAU I am more asking zoning laws for our purposes. BLAICH Any other questions from the commissioners. If not we will go to public comments on this. Public. Nobody here to speak tonight on the issue. I'll close public comments then. Back to the commission. Discussion. Any discussion. Roger. Then I would like to ask for a motion, and a second. HUNT You could entertain a motion and someone could say it so moved. HOEFER There's a proposed motion in the packet. HUNT I'll move to adopt, we don't have a resolution #, Kathryn Koch I'm just a substitute, I'm sorry I don't know. BLAICH Come on Kathryn, give us a number, pick a number. 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 HOEFER We'll fill in the # HUNT I'll move to adopt resolution given with the packet, number to be included later, of the Planning and Zoning Commission in recommending City Council will rezone Burlingame Ranch to Conservation and Rural Residential Zoning. HOEFER Chris do you want it to reflect that it be consistent with what was presented tonight. BENDON Yes, that would be good. HUNT Okay, that's included in my motion. MOONEY So this is exhibit A BENDON Also add with legal descriptions to be added by planning staff BLAICH Just a question, would that also include Jim's comment about breaking that parcel up. Because he said it was logical to do that. If we vote for it this was, will it do that. It was a suggestion from Jim. HUNT All we are doing is zoning at this point. We are not defining parcel. BLAICH second TYGRE I'll second. BLAICH its been moved and seconded. May we have a vote. Roll call Koch TYGRE yes HUNT yes BUETTOW No 14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 MOONEY yes SEMtL~U yes HANEMAN yes BLAICH yes. passed CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/13/99): BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD Mitch Haas, planner, provided the summary of issues: safety in the neighborhood, both for children and traffic flows; safety in the alley and the surrounding streets. Parking was a big issue in the neighborhood; there is very limited available parking and the feeling in the neighborhood was for this project to provide its own parking on site. There was concern with the lack of open space with the proposed plan, the children have nowhere to play or spend time other than the streets or parking lot, which wouldn't be safe. There was concern with the appearance of the existing Bavarian structure and the proposal was to keep that structure 15 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME RANCH REZONING BOB BLAICH We are back on with Burlingame, Chris. DAVID HOEFER For the record, proof of notice has been provided for the Burlingame Ranch Rezoning. The proof of notice meets the jurisdictional requirements of this board and you may proceed. CHRIS BENDON This is a public hearing to rezone the Burlingame Ranch. As you may be aware, the city has recently annexed the Burlingame Ranch. The ranch was purchased by the city and was originally a 224-acre parcel. The county expressed concern about annexing land that was over the ridge, if you will, into Owl Creek drainage and requested the city not annex the parcel of land. That was the parcel that was expected to be sold off as a free-market development right to help pay for the purchase of the ranch. So there is a 37-acre parcel here that is not part of this annexation and not part of this rezoning that remains in the county. JASMINE TYGRE Was it part oft he purchase. BENDON It was part of the purchase. It was part of the ranch and so this is a new parcel line basically along the ridge. TYGRE When you say 224-acre parcel does that include that 37 or not. BENDON No, it does. The 224 was the entire ranch, 37-acres is taken off of that, so that's approximately 187. Of that there's approximately 9 that's within the street rights-of-way, that are not coded here but extended this dotted line. The zoning as it exists in the county was split between AFR2 and AFR10. These are fairly low density, low impact, primarily residential and some farming use zone districts. The 2 and 10 is the density, 2-acre and 10 acres for a single family house. This green here is the 10-acre and this is all of Deer Hill and the brown is AFR2, primarily the area covered by the runway protection zone with an additional portion over here on the western side and the back bowl area which was AFR2. This zoning has been placed for quite some time, this is from 1974. This is at a different scale, you can pick out the ranch here. This is just the eastern portion, there was some question as to when the zoning was actually in place. The names have changes, there is an AFR2 but its basically the same thing. This is a 2- acre zoning, that's included the whole bowl, in the same designation here, the topography. Then this is an AFl, which was one unit per 10-acre zoning. So it's 1 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 the same zoning that's existing. The zoning that was provided in the county, what we are suggesting is very much similar, it's a split between conservation zone and rural residential zone. Conservation for the entire western portion and for the extended Deer Hill and rural residential for the development pods that were identified when the city was considering purchasing the parcel. The permk process, when the city was looking at was to look at the parcel for development opportunities. Four development opportunities were identified, they described them as parcels A, B, C & D. Parcel A is this back bowl area, that is somewhat flat, its on the far eastern portion; that was parcel A. Parcel B was this portion here just north of Maroon Creek Club Affordable Housing, also another flat area. And parcels C & D are really essentially one parcel, closer to the ABC and along the highway. The remainder'of the parcel is either encumbered by steep slopes as in Deer Hill here, or the face of this slope here or encumbered by the runway protection zone, were not identified at that time as development opportunities. The parcel A has been discussed as a potential affordable housing project for Burlingame Village, either as a stand alone project in that area there or in combination with projects with the Zoline family and possibly the Land Trust, that's by definition up in the air. There's really no resolution to that yet. This zoning application does not consider the outcome of that. The parcel B is currently under review that's the Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project. In that application there's a request to rezone the property to RMFA zone district. We are suggesting rural residential, in this rezoning application. That is, it's primarily a timing issue, we need to provide zoning to this land within 90 days and we don't want to be tied to an approval that may or may not happen, may be delayed, so the resolution is specifically worded so that the zoning will be rural residential unless otherwise approved. So that the Burlingame Seasonal Housing is either denied or delayed there is a zoning in place in the 90 days to meet the statutory requirements. The Deer Hill and the steep slopes that I mentioned, we are proposing for the conservation zone. This is a point of reference the conservation zone is the closest zone we have to the ARF10, it's a 10-acre zoning. Rural residential is the closest we have to AFR2, 2-acre residential. Both of those zone allow similar uses: crop production, animal husbandry, so on as allowed in the county. So it's very much the most similar zoning in the city as was provided in the county. The remaining portion, there's approximately 9 acres in the highway 82 right-of-way, jurisdictions differ whether they zone rights-of-way or not; we do. We typically zone whatever the adjacent parcels are, if they're different on either side, we zone to the centerline. So there's language in the resolution that essentially does that. There are no development rights associated with rights-of-way and with stare highway, we have literally no say. One thing is clear that no one is going to be building houses in there no matter what the zoning is. So, it really doesn't make too much difference other than what we tell them that ... That's what we provide. With that 2 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning CommiSsion June 1. 1999 we are recommending approval. I do have in the resolution, you may have seen, the draft resolution provides legal description of the different zoning areas, Jim's here. Jim's working on those middle descriptions to describe those areas, they're not parcel boundaries but provide the mapmaker with the exact location of those boundaries. BLAICH Questions from the commission. Roger. ROGER HUNT Yes, why was zoning-wise the two parcels, the bowl and the MAA site, why are they separated zoning-wise now. Before they were connected. BENDON Before they were, this area was AFR10. HLrNT The question is then why didn't you continue it along those lines, and add that portion that was AFR10 to the same BENDON Just extend this up, is that what you're saying. HUNT Yes. BENDON This area along here, you can see the topo lines, is actually very steep. The toe of the slope as Deer Hill comes down, that's I-ILrNT Okay, what are we talking about right-of-ways in that area and how does that change the zoning that you proposed change the right-of- ways. BENDON The right-of-ways to access. The areas behind here. HUNT Yeah. BENDON That right-of-way would be allowed in that conservation zone and if there needs to be a special accommodation, to accommodate a specific development plan, then they'll have that at the time of actual development. This was really for the purpose of identifying development areas, if the access comes around from the back or comes around from the front, there may need to be a zoning adjustment. The conservation zone allows for that. The zoning within rights-of-way is really pretty effective, one reason we suggested conservation is that it is not as limiting as open space, which is a severely limiting type of zone district. It allows a paved or unpaved footpath, it allows a bench, it doesn't allow a 3 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 1999 lot of uses. There are communication facilities that used to be operated by United on the top of Deer Hill, they're not currently used and they have indicated that they are going to remove them. I don't know if they are or not, but we wanted the conservation zone to allow for any kind of future use of communication-wise, up there as well, which that does. It's a little bit more open zone district. HUNT What is the zoning of the Zoline property, adjacent to this. BENDON Zolines actually, that's shown, I think they are ARF2. Yeah, Zoline is AFR2, this is basically the top of the bank as it comes down into Maroon Creek. HUNT Okay, so then are, you say that the brown zoning, the new rezoning is most equivalent to the AFR2, is that it. BENDON Right, it's a 2-acre residential zone. Some, the accessory uses are a little bit different, just in varying degrees. But it essentially allow crop production, animal husbandry, accessory farm structures and those types of things. The typical highest and best use is the 2-acre residential and that's consistent. Actually the AFR2 in the county allows for homes of 15,000. Tim MOONEY I'm wondering if it really makes sense to rezone this residential, the bowl area without having any access to it. BENDON The parcel itself has access because it's an undivided parcel. MOONEY Where would the accesg be to'the RR section to the bowl. BENDON Well, the access would either be here or within the agreement with the Land Trust. But the parcel itself is an undivided parcel so it has access rights because it has continuity with the public right-of-way. MOONEY The RR doesn't though. BENDON No, it doesn't but the parcel as a whole, the zoning boundaries do not define parcel boundaries. So the parcel as a whole has access. MOONEY So, within the conservancy zoning are you permitted to create an access to a residential development. 4 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 1999 BENDON What I was describing before was that most likely, we get a development application for this, there would be access one way or another. There might at the time be a special accommodation for the right-of-way. There might be a zoning change. There does not have to be a zoning change because zoning within rights-of-way is neither here nor there, it's a right-of-way. The commercial core extends to the centerline of Galena, it doesn't mean that you can build a building on Galena. HOEFER But the right-of-way can cross the C zone. BENDON The importance of the Conservation Zone is that respects the topography of the land, so that all of these steep areas where you wouldn't want development. You wouldn't want the housing, the parking; it wouldn't allow that. It doesn't, it doesn't, if your concern is that it would not permit the right-of-way, it's not that it will not permit it, it will still allow the right-of-way to go through there. I don't know ifI made that completely clear. MOONEY Well, it's just obviously that we're zoning something residential that is land locked. BENDON It's not a parcel boundary. The parcel remains as one entire parcel. So the zoning boundary does not create a parcel boundary. The zoning differentiates the land that's appropriate for varying ranges of developments. So the conservation zone still does allow a certain amount of development but at a lesser intensity. A 10-acre zoning vs. a 2-acre zoning. And in fact those development pods, might come in for a higher density development, which could be re-reviewed considering that specific development plan. At this point because we don't have a specific development plan it's hard to judge whether the level of development in a higher density development zone district would work. Right. So this merely kind of describes the areas based on their development ability. HUNT Does the arc of parcel 1 prevent houses from being nestled in the base of the hill. Or the arc at the base of the hill so that houses cannot be nestled into the hill. BENDON No, you could, it merely differentiates the intensity of the develOpment. Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 HUNT I understand that, but if you wanted to put housing there, and nestled a bunch of housing into the base of the hill. My point is that arc that is shown, is it shown in effect the base of the hill or does it go up the hill slightly so the houses can be nestled into it. BENDON I see what you're saying. The arc is based on that base of the hill. The topography breaks and goes up the hill. HUNT So then you put a house at the base of the hill and the hill goes up here, and propose to nestle the houses here. BENDON It doesn't determine the exact location of. What it describes as the flatter land can accommodate more development, the steeper land can accommodate less development. Where that development actually happens, in other word you get less density credit for this land than you do for this land. You get one unit per 2-acres here; you get one unit for 10-acres here. You can still nestle it into the mountain side but you get less density credit before that in your . zoning. TIM SEMRAU Chris, is it correct that ifa PUD comes in on this that they don't have to stick with these boundaries anyway, they ask to change them. BENDON Yes, this is really fixed to accommodate the 90-day statutory requirement. If we get a development plan that shows house into this zone and there's general consensus that's a much better plan, then the zoning boundary would accommodate that and probably go up on a higher topography. This is almost kind of an in-between state, if development applications come in, although it does provide a static state if those development applications either don't come in or are not approved. HUNT What was the rationale for the flag pole. BENDON Jimprovided this. I think this is to, because there's very steep slopes in here, as they come down, it's still very steep on the property here, to accommodate the ability to put in a right-of-way if it goes back to the Land Trust. HUNT You see a little incongruity with the argument on the lower part. BENDON Yes, I do but let me say this, the design does not predict or prevent any access. In other words, this zone, if you want to, you could zone 6 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 this conservation, you could just lop this offright here. In fact this is fairly steep back here and you probably wouldn't want houses coming back this far into here. I understand what you are saying and I agree. It doesn't predict or prevent any type of access. The fact that it does have a flagpole here and not here doesn't mean anything. SEMRAU Chris, is there a down-side to zoning the whole thing conservation. Pending any PUD that comes in has to change it anyway, correct. BENDON Yes, it would have to change it either way. We want to stay as much as we could with the county zoning and especially in the areas that are being considered for potential development to reflect as close as we can what the county provided. The entire area, in this area here, that's encumbered by the runway protection zone was also 2-acre housing. Which we felt wasn't really appropriate, seeing as the airport won't let you develop there anyway. The most development that might happen there would be soccer field or some sort of fairly, no structures or habitations allowed there. So that's the only thing that we are really changing significantly. SEMRAU O.K. let me see ifI have this right. If we approve this zoning and there is no PUD, then we are giving those brown parcels by right certain development rights, correct. BENDON In a sense, yes; also in a sense they would have to come through Growth Managemem. SEMRAU: I see, but we are giving them vested development rights with this zoning. BENDON In a sense, yes, in as much as zoning provides you vested rights here. SEMRAU Correct, they just have to follow the requirements of what it takes to build something g~ven that zoning. BENDON This is, the parcel has, the entire parcel had one development right, because it's an undivided parcel..~md the development right is going to be used for this free-market house here. So basically this parcel here has no development right, unless they go through Growth Management. Then they would have a right by exemption. 7 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1.1999 BLAICH Jim, you had your hand up, do you have a point of clarification. JIM CURTIS I was just going to clarify, Roger's comment, this flagpole situation, actually it should come down, but there is a comparable topographic break here, as to the topographic break here, that is not there via access, it was working with the same topographic break. HUNT So, it was a device to get a buildable area. BLAICH Useable area. CURTIS Consistent with the common line of the topographic ... MOONEY I'm looking at the airport restricted area, and wondering about the layout of that and design that because it doesn't seem to be any kind of symmetrical configuration according to the lines of the runway. And if that was discretionary or if there's a formula that creates that zone. BENDON Yes, there's a rather intense formula. The FAA does it and it's based offthe approach and departure runway. You can see the centerline here. There's a couple of different zones that they describe, some are square and some are rectangular. They also have different slope pitches and so on, that describe, it actually is symmetrical. MOONEY Doesn't that put this triangular MAA piece easily in the BENDON It does, it does. As you can see here it does nip the edge of that. The MAA proposal is outside of that, it's back in this area here. MOONEY So shouldn't that reflect that. BENDON Not necessarily, you can't build in it. The FAA isn't going to approve anything in there period. The area though is flat enough that you could take the density from, which would be, ½ a unit, which is not that much and build it here. The reason we proposed this asa development pod is that you could develop back here using the density for this whole area. SEMRAU Chris, isn't the topography in this section too steep in here also for any development. 8 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 1999 BENDON It is fairly steep back in here, yes. SEMRAU So, is there any reason you included this section even though its too steep like the other section that are in that conservation district. 'BENDON I think Jim was using this same topography line that were used around here. This area is obviously fiat and this gets fairly steep. You might be able to accommodate a couple units in here. SEMRAU Jim, do have an answer for that. CURTIS Tim, I think you are correct in being more consistent you would probably break that pod into two different pods where the topographic come. The reason they are a single pod is basically, at a prior P&Z work session, it was to keep some flexibility should BMC West ever relocate their facility. But to go back to your original question, probably would be more consistent to break them into two pods. SEMRAU And the reason not for that, because BMC may want to expand and therefore the city may want to sell them the land. Is that what you are saying. CURTIS No, exactly the reverse. BMC may want to sell their land and that land around it might be suitable for some form of housing development. That was a comment made by a prior P&Z member. HUNT Could you point out the upper bowl on that for me. The so called upper bowl. There was talk, the conservation people, in order to get conservation on the back bowl, would do something. The upper bowl portion. BENDON Yes that was. mostly on Zoline property, a small amount on Land Trust and so it's basically here. There's only a few acres, 5-acres maybe on city property, 5 or 10 on Land trust and the majority was on Zoline. HUNT And your circular finger there, is that more or less the area that the early Burlingame proposal that we saw was going to be located. Or would you circle it now. BENDON Yes, as I saw it and I'm sure it was the same one you saw was generally in this area here. It was mostly taking advantage of the flatter topography of the Zoline property, which is actually, roughly the same topography 9 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 as this back bowl area but there was some wildlife and preservation concems associated with that, so it was generally in this area. HUNT So, actually the area that we have indicated for housing on this zoning, is the upper bowl portion that the Land Trust would like to get it's clutches on. BENDON This area here, yes. SEMRAU Chris, can I ask you a question for general interest. This area here, outside the runway, is this a possible site for the mythical remote parking lot. SEMRAU I mean this is usable land here because it's outside it. So, this is not actually very good for residential because of the airport The famous parking lot that nobody can find a spot for. It's possible, isn't it. BLAICH It's called the Roger Hunt Memorial Parking Lot. BENDON Yes, I think the runway, outside of these lines have elevation or slope. It couldn't be too high, but a parking structure couldn't be more than surface parking. SEMRAU Underground, of course. BENDON Like everything else in town. There are just some general concerns HUNT That probably has to do with elevation from the projection of the runway also. BENDON Yes, from the end of the runway they project a I to 100 slope or something. SEMRAU So, if the city decided to try parking here, there's nothing that's going to preclude that, right. In this area. BLAICH There might be some problems with some uses. For example if you were going to use it as a parking lot, you want to have lighting there or the lights of the cars coming in facing the runway, there might be, 10 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 1999 somebody has to investigate that. The FAA might say that you can do this and you .F~', can't do that. SEMRAU I am more asking zoning laws for our purposes. BLAICH Any other questions from the commissioners. If not we will go to public comments on this. Public. Nobody here to speak tonight on the issue. I'll close public comments then. Back to the commission. Discussion. Any discussion. Roger. Then I would like to ask for a motion, and a second. HUNT You could entertain a motion and someone could say it so moved. HOEFER There's a proposed motion in the packet. HUNT I'll move to adopt, we don't have a resolution #, Kathryn Koch I'm just a substitute, I'm sorry I don't know. BLAICH Come on Kathryn, give us a number, pick a number. ~ HOEFER We'll fill in the # HLrNT I'll move to adopt resolution given with the packet, number to be included later, of the Planning and Zoning Commission in recommending City Council will rezone Burlingame Ranch to Conservation and Rural Residential Zoning. HOEFER Chris do you want it to reflect that it be consistent with what was presented tonight. BENDON Yes, that would be good. HUNT Okay, that's included in my motion. MOONEY So this is exhibit A BENDON Also add with legal descriptions to be added by planning staff 11 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 1. 1999 BLAICH Just a question, would that also include Jim's comment about breaking that parcel up. Because he said it was logical to do that. If we vote for it this was, will it do that. It was a suggestion from Jim. HUNT All we are doing is zoning at this point. We are not defining parcel. BLAICH second TYGRE I'll second. BLAICH its been moved and seconded. May we have a vote. Roll call KATHRYN KOCH TYGRE yes HUNT yes BUETTOW No MOONEY yes SEMRAU yes HANEMAN yes BLAICH yes. passed 12