Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880621 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 21. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Ramona Markalunas, Jim Colombo, Michael Herron and Welton Anderson. David White was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Michael: I would like to propose that we do something about the new busses that I saw yesterday. I feel that the busses we have got here belong in Denver. They are out of scale with Aspen-- their size, the fact that they are diesel, the fact that they are noisy and their colors are horrible. Ramona: And the fact that they never turn off their engines. Michael: I think the ones they ran in the Spring using the Snowmass busses was perfect. I thought that that was a bus more in scale with what Aspen really is. I mentioned something to Bruce Abel about it and he said "Oh we have a new bus that is right in between that is perfect". I saw the new bus yesterday and it is a silver semi-attractive looking bus but it is no different than the old bus. It is big and just as offensive and I am sure that it is probably just as noisy and everything else as the old busses. MOTION I would like to propose that we make a resolution urging RFTA to go to the smaller bus that they dealt with in the Spring. Ramona seconded the motion. Roger: My only comment about those Snowmass busses is that they are not particularly good busses. There are good busses to be had in that size class and where I would encourage you to go to smaller busses, I would not specify the Snowmass style because they are just basically a motorhome body on a regular truck chassis. And that does not necessarily a good bus make. Roger: Could we get an update from RFTA and discuss this over the table? Welton: Did you want to amend your motion to request further information from Bruce? Michael: Absolutely. Ramona amended her second with all in favor. PZM6.21.88 S'l'AFF COMMENTS ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON Roger made a motion to re-affirm the appointment of Welton Anderson as Chairperson and Jasmine Tygre as Vice-Chairperson. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. PITKIN RESERVE POD AMENDMENT Roger made a motion to table Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment to date certain of July 5, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. ANDERMAN 8040 GREEHLINE REVIEW Cindy: This is one of the small houses off of the tramway off of Galena. The request by the Andermans is to fill in the bottom portion of the house. It is up on stilts. What the Andermans would like to do is take from the existing house, add a lower level, a bedroom and some living space as well as add a new deck out to the north. The deck is the only concern which I have at all in that the footpr int is not expanded, the hor izontal view and the vertical view of the house are not expanded. I don't think that any of it would be a visual problem and technically it can be done accord ing to the Eng ineer ing Department without too much disturbance to the slope. The only concern that I have is that it does extend a little out from the existing footprint of the house. Although it is within the setbacks and the Andermans have the right to request this. Welton asked the applicant if they had any problems with any of the Planning Office's conditions. The answer was no, and they agree with all of the conditions. MOTION Jasmine: I move to approve the application for 8040 Greenline Review for the Anderman parcel subject to conditions 1, 2 and 3 in the Planning Office memo dated June 21, 1988. (attached in records) Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. 2 PZM6.21.88 RAPPAPORT 8040 GREEHLINE REVIEW Tom Baker: The staff in reviewing the purpose of the 8040 Greenline Review section of the code and the criteria for meeting that--about the recommendation that this item be tabled to allow the applicant time to take a look at the design to see if it can make a better transition from urban to forestry uses as well as to enhance the natural mountain setting for purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review. The staff realizes there are some constraints with the site and the applicant is going to address those. In addition the circular driveway--there is some topography at the site that the staff felt that the driveway was somewhat in excess and perhaps a more direct access to the garage section could be designed and that would minimize the impact of the grading of the site. We went out and looked at a couple of houses right next to this site and both of those houses broke up the mass of the facade or stepped back the design on the hillside. Tom then showed video of the neighborhood. We wanted to make sure that P&Z felt comfortable that this design was indeed meeting the purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review and the staff felt that the facade off of Ute Avenue was quite long. There was no breakup in the mass at all. And we are concerned that perhaps we could do a better job. Sunny VannI The purpose of the 8040 Greenline Review has historically been perceived as primarily a consumer protection type of device. They have dealt with accessibility, availability of water and sewer, fire hazards, avalanche concerns, etc. It does however include 2 criteria which address essentially the impact development on the natural mountain setting. As Tom's memo points out the issues that deal with hazard or service related concerns have been met or can be mitigated by complying with the conditions that are imposed on it. The area in which he has expressed concern deals with the impact of this particular project on the so-called natural mountain setting. So we would like to limit our comments to those 2 criteria. The site has some substantial limitations as to development. Some significant restraints were imposed on it. Tom appears to feel that the design of the house, that is the massing and its siting on the site itself is not compatible with the terrain. The house has been located on the only reasonably flat portion of the property and it is not totally flat. The house is below the maximum allowable height requirement in the zone district. And no manipulation of the existing topography is necessary to build 3 PZM6.21.88 the house other than the excavation for the retaining walls at the rear of the house and for the proposed driveway and for some minor drainage swells around the house itself. Mainly the site will be retained in its existing condition. A minimal amount of vegetation will be removed. The actual footprint itself is only 15% of the overall site. The site is about 16,000 sqft in the R-15 zone and the footprint is 2,400 sqft exclusive of the driveway which is 16% of the total. Given the site limitation that were imposed as a result of the pr io r subdivision, there is no other area to locate the building envelope. The issue appears to be the size of the house and its impact on the so-called cr iter ia under 8040 Greenline Review. This house is substantially below the actual 8040 Greenline itself. For all practicality the lot and the proposed structure will be visible only from Ute Avenue. It is only subject to review under 8040 because it is within 150 technically of the line located up on the mountain. For all practical purposes this is an urban lot adjacent to a public thoroughfare on the valley floor. It is not a lot up on the side of the mountain. To use the 8040 Greenline process to restrict the allowable size of the house or to dictate the architectural designs, given the nature of this lot, would be inappropr iate. It is something we have not done in the past to my knowledge. The visible aspects are shielded to a certain extent from Ute Avenue and to a substantial extent from the pedestrian trail system. The proposed resident will not obstruct views to the mountain as viewed from Ute Avenue nor will he excessively degrade the adjacent natural setting. There are no scars on the mountain side itself. There are no new access roads to create the access to the site itself--only the driveway. With respect to the driveway design we chose the semi-circle design to minimize the amount of disruption on the site. Tom has suggested that a direct access from Ute Avenue to the parking itself would be preferable. The City has said the while we may grade the area between the street and our property line for drainage purposes and while we may landscape it or bring it back into native grasses, we cannot create berms or build any substantial structures in it. To put the driveway straight up here would require us to put retaining walls to ramp up here within the public right-of-way itself. The driveway itself follows the basic contours of the existing site. The City Engineer has approved 2 cutouts and has allowed us to grade this area to an approved drainage itself. This design would preclude any direct visibility of the garage. It 4 PZM6.2l.88 would also restrict the view's parking that is sitting up here as opposed to a straight shot directly up the mountain. As far as having 2 access points, that was done primarily for snow removal, for safety, allowing cars to pull in one way and come out the other and to permit access for fire protection and emergency vehicle purposes. The adjacent structure has the same design for the very same reasons. Milo Thompson, architect: the house. Made a presentation on the design of Jasmine: How long is this? Roger: 95 ft total, 85 ft as far as the monolithic wall with 21 windows. Milo: However I think the building should be scaled in relationship to the frontage of the site. Jasmine: The reason I am concerned about that is that when people talk about perception from this or that end I am thinking about the perceptual along the way. I walk along that path almost every day and I really disagree that that this an urban lot. When you are walking a facade that is that long, it goes on for a very long time in your perception. That facade really does disturb me. Sunny: Keep in mind you have a lot adjacent to a public street that is access from a public street that is just above the street and is within its setbacks and substantially below its maximized footprint. The fact that someone chooses to make a long facade is an architectural decision which they make. Welton: What is your thinking behind designing an 85 ft long facade with 21 identical windows all in a row which reminds me of a century old passenger train car. Milo: We all carry different associations with designs. My association would be something that perhaps you would like better as well as kind of a lodge. The house in addition to fitting within the guidelines of the site are also about how the interior is designed. Roger: If it had smoke stacks, it would be a very good design for a rolling mill. Welton: I am curious why you would want 85 ft of wall with a 3 ft window every 5 ft. 5 PZM6.21.88 Milo: The view is continous by virtue of the window being very repetitious. Michael: What concerns me with this discussion of the Planning Office's recommendation is that we are becoming an architectural review board. And I don't think we are. I don't think any part of the conversation is appropriate. As long as they are in compliance with the code they can put anything they want there. Roger: I disagree with you strongly. I agree with the Planning Office concerning particularly item F. When you look at this across the valley which it will certainly be seen across the valley, it will show up like a neon sign. It is certainly within the purview of the 8040 Greenline review. I am seeing a monolith not only up close but from a distance that to me is an unacceptable transition from urban to up the hill or from urban west to more primitive east. Jim: The trouble with that criteria is I don't think that at any time you can enhance the mountain experience in building a house. The purview of the 8040 Greenline is to minimize the impact to the setting. But I don't want to get hung up on architectural elements of how you minimize that impact. Two problems here--one is its relationship with this facade to the street and this driveway. I agree with this driveway. Everyone agreed on the driveway at this point. Sunny then explained the plans for landscaping. It is a matte finish on the roof. We are proposing a rusty terra cotta color. Jim: At this point there are other methods such as planting and topography that can address and break out those concerns rather than get into the articulation and specific tastes of the architecture. Mari: blend more. My feeling about it is that the 85 ft long facade does not in because it is too monolithic. It should be broken up Michael: intrude on whether it No matter what you put on this lot, it is going to it anyway. Are we not just splitting hairs over is a 50 ft home or whether it is zigzagged. Sunny: You could take the position that the North of Nell Ski Hotel is an intrusion on the open view of the mountain. But it is not subject to 8040 because of its location. Ramona: How tall is this structure? 6 PZM6.2l.88 Sunny: If you measure from the lowest point which would be the garage door to the top of the roof it would be 41 ft. Milo: It is within all the guidelines that are set out for maximum building heights on this site. Ramona: I think we have to approve the 8040. We are not an architectural review. I am not thrilled with this design. But we can't totally stay out of architectural review. It is built in. Every day as I come into town I see those blue roof of the Centennial and I wonder. Welton: I find the 85 ft long large passenger train with lots of little windows objectionable. However, I am not going to try to second guess the architect. I would like to see some articulation in that long facade but you explained you wanted to articulate the end and leave the front facade very plain. I would be willing to go along with approving it as designed with the condition that the area between the circular driveway and Ute Avenue be landscaped with evergreen and deciduous trees that don't need to be of a large caliber when planted but will eventually grow out to finish off the edge of Ute Avenue and restrict the pedestrian view of the house so that you don't get the impression of a very long straight facade. Roger: That doesn't address the problem of the monolithic roof which you will see from a distance. Agreed you won't see much of it from Ute Avenue but certainly from Centennial and a whole bunch of places. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve the 8040 Greenline Review deleting the first condition of the Planning Office recommendation in the second paragraph regarding the driveway. Michael: If the fireplace ordinance is not in effect, why should we be imposing it? Sunny: What I said is that we would limit it to 1 fireplace. If the new regulation is passed that say any new fireplace has to burn gas logs then we will install gas logs in our 1 fireplace. If that regulation should not pass then we would like to enjoy the same benefits that any other individual would have as far as the 1 fireplace. Michael: I make a motion to approve the 8040 Greenline Review eliminating the condition of the Planning Office regarding the driveway and without the condition of the fireplace other than 7 PZM6.21.88 that it agrees with the law plus the additional condition of tree planting between the circular drive and the right-of-way. (attached in records) Ramona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to 3. Against were Mari, Jasmine and Roger. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING Welton re-opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben: Roger had requested information on the economic feasibility of running a lodge on this property. The main issues that are remaining are the issue of whether or not the rezoning to something other than L-P on the site is something that would benefit the community and in what way. Roger: I did receive a letter today from Joe Edwards. I submit it for the record. (attached in records) Sunny: A decision to rezone property is based on a finding of compliance with a set of criteria. The proposed rezoning to 0- Office of this particular property which seems to be the least objectionable to the Planning Office, we believe we could demonstrate compliance with the majority of those criteria. There are however several of those criteria which are subjective in nature and which we continued to debate for a considerable amount of time here. The Planning Office has already indicated in their memorandum that the FAR of 1 to 1 in this location is not an issue. That 0- Office is an acceptable criteria here if the Planning and Zoning Commission does not concur that they want to retain the L-3 or L-P. And that that implies that they could demonstrate compliance at that category with the rezoning criteria since they are willing to recommend approval of it. The issue here then I believe is whether or not it should be required to remain a lodge. And whether or not the zoning ordinance should be used to enforce the location and a continued existence of a lodge in this location. That issue is one of really fundamental fairness to the current owner. If the owner wants to cease operation of this lodge then they should be entitled to conduct any other business on this property that would be permitted under zoning. In this particular case the only type of activity that is permitted under the L-3 Lodge is a lodge operation plus employee housing and ,,~, 8 PZM6.21.88 certain other uses. In no other commercial zone district is that severe a limitation existent. In the C-l you can do residential and commercial. In the O-Office you can do office and residential. In the C-C you can do lodge accommodations and you can do deed restricted employee housing. This one zone has this severe limitation. By saying that you are unwilling to rezone this property to a use consistent with its masterplan, you are basically telling the owners that he has to run a lodge or he has no other use of his property. I agree with Jasmine that we should create incentives to maintain existing lodges and they continue to represent a viable part of the lodge inventory. But I think using the zoning ordinance to force a person in a specific location to continue to be a lodge is an inappropriate way to go about it. I f you support the concept that some kind of fairness dictates that this particular parcel is unique--if you can support that the O-Office zone which surrounds it is also an appropriate location in this case, you can find under the criteria that rezoning to O-Office is consistent. So the issue here is whether or not it is fair to tell the owner or any subsequent purchaser of this property that because he chose to operate as a lodge and because the City rezoned it at his request to L-3 to provide incentives for its continued existence--if he makes a decision that that existence is no longer viable or chooses to pursue other development then I think you are required to review it under the criteria to find that it is in compliance under that criteria and to rezone it at minimum to O-Office. Jasmine: One thing that continues to disturb me is that you talk as though we are zoning people. We are zoning pieces of property regardless of who owns them. I think that when you get into the fairness to the owner or what the owner wants or what the perspective owner wants, you are losing sight of what the purpose of what the zone was which was this particular piece of property and its use in its relationship to its role in the community regardless of who owns it. And that is still the most important thing in my judgement as far as this particular piece of property is concerned. Welton opened to the floor for public comment. Albie Kern, representing Mr. and Mrs. Capelli: All of the properties surrounding the Bell Mountain Lodge are zoned of a greater or more intensive use. (Went into background of zoning of this particular lodge) 9 PZM6.2l.88 Roger: Approximately 1/3 of that property adjoins O-Office. Approximately 1/6 adjoins Commercial Lodge. Aproximately 1/6 adjoins C-l and approximately 1/3 Neighborhood Commercial. The way I am feeling about what you call a Lodge-3 overlay--yes it started out as a 10dge-3 overlay for the purposes of putting the restrictions on what was the underlying or original zoning as far as FAR and that type of criteria on the property. But once it was zoned Lodge, it was zoned Lodge. Now you want to come in for rezoning. And O-Office is just one of the possibilities because it happens to be adjoining. But there are other possibilities that it could be applied for as well. One being C-l which I don't agree with here. Another would be Neighborhood Commercial or some form of Commercial Lodge. We have Commercial Lodge limited 1 to 1 right next to it. So to me though it may have been original masterplanned that entire full block O-Office it has since progressed in effect for that half block for a higher usage. And I think that higher usage is valid. There is some logic to that. Sunny: That doesn't negate the validity of it being rezoned to something else if you can demonstrate the compliance to the criteria. The fact that it is economically feasible or not feasible is not an issue. Roger: All I am saying is O-Office is only an equal competitor as far as I am concerned in viewing this to any other adjacent zoning. Albie: That depends on if the Planning & Zoning Commission wants to follow the master plan or deviate from it. A plan is supposed to tell the residents, the community, the people that are dealing with it--here is where things are going to happen. It is totally totalitarian to tell a person that you have to be in this kind of business. Roger: That is a lodge zone. The fact that it became part of an overlay, that doesn't negate the validity of it being a lodge zone. Even the Master Plan is modified over the years in between. And the way it is modified is by a combination of things. Becoming L-3, then later I-P for the Capelli parcel and then the Commercial Lodge for the Buckhorn Lodge parcel. George: The present use of it as a lodge is the highest and best use to serve the community which is in dire need of smaller lodges. Because of its proximity to the slopes, to the shopping and downtown restaurants, it helps to solve the problem of vehicular pollution and traffic congestion. Albie's point about now that he doesn't want to operate it as a lodge, he should be able to change the zone. Well, a lot of us have a residentially 10 PZM6.21.88 zoned property and when we get tired of a residence I am sure that if we can change the zoning to a higher use that if we could change to a higher use and sell for a higher price I am sure that we would like to do that. So I think that the principle that it is zoned the way it is and then should be able to be changed when you want to stop using that zone, doesn't apply. I think the present zoning is proper and it is a very rare item for small lodges and I think incentives to improve upon the lodge and tell people to build new lodges of the same size should be adopted. The reality is, as we all know, and what we are concerned about is that if it is zoned Office that there will not be an office use but it will go into the duplex development and as soon as you do duplexes on a property that large, it kills the neighborhood as you can see by the Baltimore row houses. I think when you are considering changing zoning you have to consider what the impact would be on the community and I think that would be a negative impact by basically killing the neighborhood. I think the community really needs the small lodge and I think that is the best use for the property. Welton: Read a letter into the record from Joseph Edwards regarding what the courts might do with a rezoning requests and siting several cases. (Attached in records). Welton then asked if there were further comments from the public. There were none and he closed the public hearing. Welton: Something was bothering me when this application came through 2 weeks ago. I came out of the meeting feeling that here was an applicant willing to let the City build him a basement in order to get an extra .5 on the FAR. Here was an applicant who said "I want to be a part of the Master Plan for that block which the Master Plan for that block is a public parking structure to service skiers. I want to be part of that and I will let you build a parking garage under my structure. I will let you build me a foundation if you give me an extra .5 of the FAR." This was sort of in line with what we talked about when we were doing the Master Planning of creating a joint public/private venture kind of thing but I think the City intended that it be a joint public/private venture not the public sector building a new foundation for a commercial structure and then getting an extra 50% FAR. So the applicant changed his application and said OK, no parking structure--we will take the straight FAR for other office or commercial 1 but that takes it out of the realm of fitting in with what has been masterplanned for that corner of town. And for very good reasons. Many hours were spent in this room studying charts of traff ic patterns going around town, through 11 PZM6.2l.88 town to show that, yes, that is a good worker/parking area. That would be a terrific skier subgrade parking area because they never have to go through town. They can do it right off Highway 82. So that really bothered me that we were going to be losing the opportunity. Between then and now I read the section of the Master Plan which addresses both that parking structure and the structure with the 3-phased long-term approach that also incorporates city Market and the entire block except the Dustin building. I thought it would be a shame to lose that opportunity because somebody wants to do something so quickly. I feel badly for the applicant that nothing except a lodge is possible there. Although I feel a lodge is what is most appropriate there because of its proximity to the ski slope. So I was thinking of some options. The parcel at the other end of that block, the Buckhorn Lodge is zoned Commercial Lodge which normally has a 2 to 1 FAR but it has a different restriction placed on it. It is a 1 to 1 FAR. Then I thought if they want to be zoned Office, let them be zoned Office but with a restriction on that re-zoning that it only be used for Office. The intent of the Office zone which is primarily on Main Street is to allow for the gradual transition of residential Victorian structures to become a higher use which is Office uses and not for the transition of office uses to high-key, high pressure, high dollar residential uses that would be sitting 2 blocks or a block and a half from the chair lift and be occupied by out-of-town owners more than likely for very limited periods of time. In going from a lesser use which you are calling Lodge to a greater use which we are calling Office Uses I see if that is rezoned Office with no restrictions on it, it will go from a more intense use which is tourist accommodations to a much less intense use which isn't in anybody's Master Plan for an area which is that close to downtown commercial and recreational opportunities. High priced condos are not orientated to this locality. Other options--Neighborhood Commercial is definitely consistent. This is appropriate for Lodge. I find acceptable--Office with no single family duplex-type of uses. I found the analysis at the end of your supplemental information that was submitted between the 2 meetings-the breakdown of why a lodge wouldn't work on that property to be really fascinating because you really came up with numbers that are guaranteed to make them not work. 12 PZM6.2l.88 Your figure was $140 a square foot construction cost and $600,000 in architect fees and other soft fees. I have a client who is the owner of a small lodge who did an addition and remolel. This lodge services a sector of the market that I feel we are tending toub. That is the people who don't have a Rolex watchg on their wrist. My point is that his was an addition and a remodel. His construction cost was in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 a square foot. This is suggested as being a total tear-down-rebuild and on 1.9 million dollars which I find to be a big burden to start out with. I don't want to freeze this at only a Lodge use even though I think that is best. I think it is unfair that L-3 only allows one use. Albie: I don't think there is an area in the city where there is a zoning which says you must do one business and one business only. They did this for the benef it of the lodge owners. But what about the lodge owners who don't want to operate or can't afford to upgrade? Roger: They have the option not to upgrade. Sunny: The one thing that was clear in the review of the records and which supported this was that all of the discussions gave the individual lodge owners at that time the opportunity not to be involved. In other words City Council was very much concerned that we not force people to rezone. We can only speculate. But if we had told all the individual lodge owners that if we do this, that is it--you are a lodge from now until hell freezes over, the circumstances might have been a bit different. The point is that if he doesn't want to be a lodge, he has the ability to apply for any other zoning which is consistent with the criteria in that area. We believe we can make a case as to why O-Office is consistent. I believe I can make a case why C-l is consistent. The only concern the Planning Office had over C-l is that there may be some abuse of the uses which is the same concern that Welton expressed over O-Office. The zoning is OK but we have got too much high in the residential at the moment. The point is it is appropriate for 0, NC, Ll or whatever. And he ought to be allowed to do whatever uses the market dictates or that are permitted in that zone district. Jasmine: Of all the criteria that you evaluate in terms of looking at an application for rezoning the number one thing that you have to do is to make a determination as to whether or not the applied-for rezoning is in the community interest--whether there is some community benefit to accrue from making this 13 PZM6.21.88 change. Not a benefit to the applicant--a benefit to the community. As far as I am concerned the applicant is requesting that the Bell Mountain site be rezoned either to C-l or Office. We have discussed a lot of other options. Those are not the ones that are applied for and I think we should get back to looking at C-l or Office. In my opinion there is no benefit to the community by zoning this parcel C-l. I don't see any benefit to the community in zoning it Office. We have more than enough office space at this time and as far as the other uses that are permitted by C-l zone or Office zone which would include residential uses--again I do not see any benefit to the community. Jim: I think the one thing that the code does have to say is that the applicant does have the right to apply for the zone change if it is consistent with the Master Plan. I think that it has been demonstrated that it has been consistent with the past Master Plan and he does have the right to apply for it and it is consistent with surrounding uses. Those elements are consistent. Roger: I would suggest that we recommend to City Council against either 0 or C-l, and we do it by resolution. That we give the Council alternatives and why we think those alternatives are better. A straw vote was called for by the applicant. Welton: Would those members of the Commission who would be inclined to vote to deny the request for rezoning to 0 or C-l without restrictions please indicate by raising their right hand. Four members raised their hands. Sunny: to the with a I want on the record each member's specific criteria. Otherwise I am resolution I can't even explain. comments with respect going up to Council Jim: The only sUbjective cr iter ia I see here is whether or not the Commissioners feel that it is of public benef it. And to me that is the subjective criteria and can be argued both ways. I think they have met all other criteria and they have the right by code to make this application and they do fulfill the rest of the requirements. Cindy: The Commission could direct the Planning staff to write a resolution reflecting what your position is. Welton: We will go through the criteria one by one. 14 PZM6.21.88 l. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Sunny: I assume that O-Office or C-l is simply rezoning. Neither one of those is inconsistent with portions of the zoning ordinances. Welton: That does not apply or is an issue here. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Would the Commissioners be in agreement that it is not inconsistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan particularly the parking and transportation element. Sunny: The second sentence which says C-l zoning does not in the staff's opinion effectively implement the intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan. There is absolutely no discussion as to the inappropriateness of C-l uses in the Master Plan itself. In fact the Master Plan states that local oriented uses of Commercial, Residential or Office nature are appropriate. The Planning Office comment is that the possibility exists to get uses in the C-l zone district which don't necessarily totally serve the local. But that is not inconsistent with the Master Plan. And that is a concern over what uses are permitted in the zone district. To say that C-l as a use is inconsistent with the Master plan is simply not correct. Michael: From a legal standpoint, we are really digging into an area where we can bury ourselves. To turn around and say that the transportation element is going to have any bearing on this whatsoever--the transportation element is a confiscatory taking if you are not going to vote for rezoning because of it and I don't think that is what you are looking to do here. Because the City Council says they would like to put a parking garage here, you are not going to let anybody do anything here then. And if you are doing that then that is a taking of property and you are going to buy it and 1.9 million is on the tables so I think we are going to be very careful about that. Roger: I feel that it is just pointing out that it is not consistent with that one element of the plan. I don't think that of itself-- Sunny: The correct comment would be that O-Office and C-l itself are not inconsistent with the transportation element. There is no develop proposal before you. You could make the comment that 15 PZM6.21.88 any subsequent application that did not include a parking garage would be inconsistent. Given the fact that the applicant has said he would like either C-l or O-Office and at this point a parking garage under that scenario does not appear to be feasible then yes that rezoning is inconsistent with one element of the Master plan which identifies parking. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Sunny: Concerning the Planning Office's comments it doesn't say it is inconsistent. What it talks about is what we prefer. Well, maybe we would like it to be neighborhood commercial but maybe it could be C-l but then we might get some other Mezzaluna in there as a conditional use so it never addresses the issue of whether or not C-l or O-Office are consistent with surrounding zone districts. It talks about individual uses which mayor may not be permitted in that zone district. I can see where C-l is more objectionable than O-Office because of the potential problem imposed by the uses that are allowed but to flat out to say it is inconsistent with surrounding land use is an overstatement. Surrounding zoning and surrounding land uses--you have got C-C uses to the right of it. Forget the FAR. It is commercial use that is allowed in the C-C zone district which is more intense than C-l. You have got neighborhood commercial across the way. You have got Lodge across the way in the Durant Mall even though it is zoned N-C. You have got Commercial across the street on 2 corners that is C-C. Any use allowed in the C-L zone district is that which is allowed in the C-C zone district. Welton: Perhaps that one can be worded "Owing to the general mixed vegetables quality of the zoning in the surrounding neighborhood, it could be compatible with any number of zoning districts." Roger: I agree with the Planning Office paragraph for criteria 3 with respect to the C-l zoning. It does not address 5th Office zoning however. The O-Office should be addressed one way or the other. Sunny: The problem I have with this is there are statements to the effect--because of the Little Nell approach hotel which you considered at considerable debate and you approved, we have created a problem from the block across the street which my client has to bear. 16 PZM6.21.88 Roger: We have to address Office for this criteria. Cindy: We will take a stab at that so that you can look at it from different angles but your concern is that the local character of the fringe area, we could compromise by the rezoning to O-Office or C-l. Welton: To O-Office with a limitation in use. structure to it is an office building. The closest Nobody has any problem with 4. 5. Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. No problems with that. 6, 7, and 8. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Well, yes and no. We don't have really a copy of a proposal to judge that. Sunny: This is a request to rezone to O-Office. There is nothing that says you have to submit a development proposal. It is just a request to rezone to O-Office based upon its consistency-- Welton: There was a development proposal submitted. Sunny: Which is effectively withdrawn and amended with a request for C-l or O-Office. Jasmine: There was not a specific development proposal. I think one of the things that is very relevant here is community character. Because for those of us who would like to see it preserved as a lodge, that is a very important part of the community character and by granting this rezoning to O-Office or C-l you are precluding it from ever becoming a lodge again. And to me that is a very important part of the community character that we are trying to preserve. Welton: Whether there have been changed conditions effecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment-- 17 PZM6.21.88 Sunny: We can construe changed conditions to be anything you want. It can be the owner of the lodge is no longer going to be a lodge. The condition is changed. It can be--there has been a new development of different types in the immediate vicinity of the project. There has been O-Office converted to residential as a permitted use under the zone district. The issue is not whether it is a bad change condition or a good change condition. The most important ones are that the owners of the lodge are proposing to terminate operation of a lodge and that the property is zoned for no other use and therefore some appropriate use that is consistent with the other criteria should be considered. without beating the change in use condition because I think there are others as well, I think that is the primary one that warrants this being considered at this time. If they wanted to run a lodge we wouldn't be here and the property wouldn't be for sale. Roger: I don't find where there have been conditions where conditions have changed effecting the subject parcel or surrounding neighborhood which support rezoning to 0 or C-l. Jasmine: We may want to address the issue that this particular zone distr ict is restr icti ve to the point of only one allowable use which is something that those of us who are in the majority are concerned about and that there might be a way of addressing that. Ramona: I think another issue that needs to be addressed because you are voting on this for the reason you don't want to change it to Office for the reason that it will be high-end townhouses. Perhaps we should look at the Office zone district and the uses that are allowed in the Office zone district if we really do not intend to let that district become high end townhouses because the location of that district stacked along the east side of the commercial core lends itself to not only being offices and if that is what we really want in the office zone we should say so. We shouldn't allow these other high-end townhouses if we don't feel they are appropriate. Sunny: That is correct. That is why we feel like the applicant is being penalized. You have a development community that is in the business to develop a product that is in demand. If there are a variety of uses which are allowed on any specific parcel then the applicant will develop the use which there is a demand for in that time and therefore complete the development. From my point of view the issue is not we had better put limitations on the O-Office. You ought to structure your zone districts to accommodate those uses that you think are appropriate in that location. If there ought to be a pocket of L-3 zoning, you ought 18 PZM6.21.88 to make a pocket of L-3 zoning but what you shouldn't do is take those types of concerns, read them into this set of criteria and apply it to someone who is pending before you now. Jasmine: I disagree with you because I think that what we are trying to say is that the zone that it is now is the most appropr iate and this is why and that is what this exercise is about. But I think Ramona's point about the Office zone is certainly very well taken because it has applications not just to your piece of property but to all Office zone. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Roger: I certainly feel that it is in conflict with the public interest. It is in conflict with public interest as well as not in harmony with the purpose of this intent. Jasmine: I agree. Welton: I believe the majority feel it is in conflict with the public interest. MOTION Roger: I move to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution reflecting our discussions at this point and reflecting the majority opinion. Jasmine seconded the motion. Ramona: I would like to amend that that it should also have a minority opinion on the resolution. Albie: I just want to say that I am rather amazed at the majority's thinking with regard to what is zoning and what is best for the community. L-3 was given to help the lodge owners, not to hurt them or not to restrict their use of the property. And what you want to do is tell everybody now in this particular instance what you will do and what you won't do and limiting it to one choice and one choice only. Welton: There are 2 possible zoning changes. And in virtually every discussion we have said aspects of those 2 possible zoning changes are good but other aspects we don't think are appropriate or in the best interest of the community. And that maybe a 3rd option or hybrid option or some other creative-- 19 PZM6.21.88 Albie: You keep reiterating back to the fact, prefer L-3, lodge, lodge or lodge. Cindy: They prefer that to the request to rezone. Albie: That's not what I heard. Sunny: Had we asked for N-C or C-L or L-l, the Planning Office comment was still a preference-- Jasmine: That is not what we said, Sunny. Sunny: I just said that is what the Planning Office's memorandum stated--that the L-3 in this location was appropr iate. I guess what you are telling me if I came in with another zone district you might not feel that strongly about L-3. Jasmine: No--I don't know. I am looking at what you proposed. And I am not one of the ones who wanted to play with all of the other zoning. This is what you asked for, this is what we are working with. Sunny: I didn't ask for a N-C or a C-L because they are not appropriate in this application. Jasmine: I think it would be very nice to have a lodge there. I don't think Office or C-l are appropriate. But that is what I feel in regard to those 2 things only. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. There is a request to amend the motion to include a minority. Roger: I will not amend the motion. Those in favor of the motion were Roger, Jasmine, Mari, and Welton. Those opposed were Ramona and Michael. Jim Colombo had to leave before the motion was made. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:05. c.m.Y~ D.puty 20