Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800520 FO~M 'C C. F_ HOECKH B. B.ll L. C,). RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on May 20, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, Nancy McDonnell and Joan Klar and Perry Harvey. Also present were Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times, Giddion Kaufman, Attorney, Ron Stock, City Attorney, Karen Smith and Sunny Vann of the Planning Office and Dan McArthur of the Engineering Department. Commissionmembers Comments Olof Hedstrom commented on the Aspen Institute meeting that was held on Friday, May 16, 1980. He felt a review of the action taken at that meeting should be reflected. We have before us the Resolution and have mentioned that the Planning Office has presented the weakness and dangers of the Ordinance for our consideration. I had mentioned repeatedly that the ordinance represented to a large ex- tent perhaps a political result and certainly a negotiated settlement and many of the sections are really subject to modification and to recommend a lot of changes to some of the critical and sensitive areas of the ordinance would be no more than irritant. An irritant that would be in my opinion, objectionable and serve no useful 1 purpose in the efforts of City Council and many dedicated citizens to arrive at a settlement. The facility is intended to be operated at a profit and every effort made by the operators to fill the rooms all the time either by recog- nized tourist under the quarterly 92 room accummilative formula or by conferees during conference time or other times by some highbreed tourist/vacationer/conferee and this was a concern of members of the commission. With such an operation, the raw uncontrollable impacts would be severe. The question here is, do you beleive that the objectionable effects can not be sufficiently mitigated in subsequent steps in the process and then it was recom- mended for denial for the proposal. But, if you beleive that objections can be resolved and the uncertainity of the proposal, can be made clear and exceptable, then it is the duty of the commissioner to recommend approval. In re~Lewing this for the record to refresh all our memories and seek comfirmation of my understanding and put on record what seemed to be confussed and vague in the final minutes of that long session and also to pro- vide some summarization for those persons not present. We now must approve the Resolution as written. Lee has some statement to make in this regard. Lee Pardee commented that he had made clear previously, that he would not be participating in discussions because he had never taken part in the Institute proceedings and was being held financially and personally liable. I was not informed until yesterday that the Insitiute had filed and recorded their intention to releive us from liablity. Concerning the proposed resolution, I would like to make some additional comments. This decision shows what uses are permitted and my suggestions to this is; one, on Sec- tion 2 pg. 4, under a., a strict reading of this would allow the average group of professionals that have their meetings from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., skiies a whole day and returns for meetings from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. qual- ifies for the IRS write-off and have infact been tourist, and to drop the word primarily and put at the end of the sentence except for tourist use as allowed in Section 3 below, and require full day use. Secondly, the calendar quarterly use should include, except for Christmas period and the week of Washington's Birthday, this would eliminate the additional possible 500 tourist at the times when the -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKHB.B.&L.C,). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 area is over crowded and the last thing we need at these times is tourist that can not have a good time and cause traffic problems through out the area. Thirdly, in Section 5, concerning the employee units, and yet we have in this resolution, at no time will the city require the Aspen Institute to use its facilllty guest residential units to house an operational staff and it doesn't seem correct that we would do this unless their phasing wasn't good and having 60% of the employees housed. We are taking the strength out of this proposal and should retain some leverage. After PUD and subdivision approval the develop- ment rights and this should be included and this is the final one and would remove the possibility of confusion. Lastly an operational staff should be spelled out that it is everybody except faculty and board of directors. Welton Anderson commented that he agrees with what Lee says except the weakness in this is the inherent weakness in all that is done and the feeling that the frustration of having and repeating the same concerns, that it does diddly shit and nothing seems to work in getting some notice of a response from them. Perry Harvey commented that the basic problem still is we can not define the difference between a tourist and conferee and this double talk and there is no clear cut definition of the uses and should have an explanation of what they are doing with the center. Joan Klar commented she appreciated Lee's comments and had these in my notes and since this was presented based on the criteria, we need to firm up and have some strength in the legislation that has been developed to give the city some protection as well. Nancy McDonnell commented that this is in zoning so weak and uncomfortable and this commission acting politically makes this questionable. We should ask Council, what do you have to have and we then can work on something. The problem is that if we don't come to a decision then we would have run them through the process again and then they will probably have better grounds for suit and it will be an easier process. Just in the fact that we can not decide whether or not it is primarily a conference facility or not and we basically don't agree on the usage. Olof Hedstrom commented that we had deferred many of the questions to the subsequent PUD application, which is what is being done at this time. This also puts us in the posi- tion of choosing the direction we vote and that the prob- lems can be resolved and the uncertainities can be clari- fied and made exceptable, and on those bases we approved this and not on a political bases as proposed by Bill Dunaway. Ron Stock commented that this commission had voted 3 to 2 for approval of the Institute proposal and 3 to 2 to recom- mend certain changes to the document. A Resolution has been prepared for presentation and we should discuss the specific language which formalizes the decision that has been made concerning the land use decision. This group has more than one roll and that is to decide if this de- velopment does differ from the idea and also, that the ideal development is not going to occur on this property. , . -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ c. F. HOEC~fL 3. 3. & L. C,). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 The secondary roll comes in, in deciding if this is an exceptable development on the property and if you beleive it is, you will be recommending that it be approved by the City Council and if you do not beleive it is exceptable then you will recommend denial or of modification. To look at this from a planning point of view is not the only roll that this commission has and Allen Merson has some comments outlined on this matter. Allen Merson commented that it seems the issue has been defined and well aware of inadequacies and past proposals of the Institute and the concerns of this proposed set- tlement. You are being called upon to do is to decide whether or not this represents a broad-gaged framework with the Institute property, whether given this designation of SPA with permitted uses that are specified in the Ordinance and you beleive that the land can be satisfac- torily developed in a way that serves the general welfare. The general welfare is many faceted and one is the impact on the neighborhood and the other is the overall welfare of the Aspen community, whether or not in the longrun the Institute has proposed will benefit the community and the citizens will be better off in the longrun as a result of this. This commission and the City Council has to weigh this framework for development with whatever inade- quacies it may have against what could happen if the City wins the lawsuit. Ron and I remain confident that the City will prevail in this lawsuit and the nature of the action is such that the burden is on the plantiff's in this case to show that the City Council acted arbitraily in turning down a proposal last year. The presumption lies in favor of the City and the City should prevail in the lawsuit. What happens if the City wins the lawsuit is that the property goes back to square one and begins where before the lawsuit began, and locks in development and protects this community for the future from perhaps a development that would be less exceptable to this commission and the City Council. Mayor Herman Edel commented that he felt it is presump- tuous of Allen Merson to discourse wide accounts, whether true or not. His function in this whole process is as a litigant attorney and for him to interpret this as he has, goes far beyond his roll and concern and don't be- leive it should be discussed as is anything having to do with the litigation. Ron Stock state that the Resolution as presented indicate in the first whereas, the Council initiated review of the precise plan and referred the same to the commission for consideration and recommendation. The second whereas, if you did infact hold a public hearing, to serve public notice and in accordance with Article 12, Chapter 24. Section 1, of the Resolution is the section that makes the findings of facts, and of course does find all those facts that are in the attached Ordinance, sixth draft, but includes the seven whereas clauses as remodeled, which was part of your 1979 Resolution #5, the whereas clauses that we took out of the Ordinance, which I said was appropriate for you to find as fact was part of your justification in recommend- ing limitations on uses of land. Section 2, is a section that recommends positively the precise plan and recommends approval. Section 3, is the recommendation of certain -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fO~M!1 C.f.HOECKELD. 0.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 modifications in the Ordinance. I tried to put in rather general language each of the eight recommendations, first to delete, and permitted density, from Section I, Section 2, is your request that there be restrictions on the sale such as food and beverage facilities, the recreational and retail facilities, could not serve the general public, with the exception of luncheon meetings for community organizations. Section 3, is the movement of kitchen from one use to another. Section 4, is the elimination of executive golf. Section 5, is the catching of the multi- plication error in the total number of guest units per quarter. Section 6, would be language that a minimum number of employee units will be required and the minimum number will be established at the PUD process and adding language that the requirement to housing employees applies to all property owners, whether it is the Institute or a future owner. Paragraph 7, would be the addition of lang- uage that indicates in addition to the 265 bedrooms that there could 12 additional spaces. Eight, is language to protect the valley floor of the Roaring Fork Valley and designate the riding ring as open space and further desig- nation of public trails. Section 4 language states that in your opinion, the accomodations of tourist, while ex- ceptable is not the most desirable or ideal use of this property. As a result of no guarantee that the Aspen Institute will remain in Aspen, the commission shall rely upon traditional land use controls to mitigate the adverse impact of the project. The next paragraph goes into the transportation, and states specifically prior to obtaining PUD approval, the Aspen Institute will be required to create a traffic circulation system containing the following items; guests riding by auto will be required to use an auto storage facility provided by the Institute and the facility should not be located in close proximity to the lodging and that is to discourage auto use, there should be string ant pricing strategies to try to discourage the removal of vehicles by the guest during his stay. Para- graph B, is that they will be required to develope appro- priate bus service to mitigate the impacts of community uses of the facility and then a Vann system to meet the needs of the guests at the facility, which should be sized by the high level service to the guests with emphasizes on the airport as a detriment to private and rental car uses. Arrangements with local cab companies to provide service. Then in relationship to your comments regarding the need for proper programing of the types of courses to be held at the Institute as well as how it will be marketed. Further, the commission will require the Aspen Institute to prepare and submit materials defining the program development of the facility and the proposed marketing strategies, preference will be given to year-round empha- sis on programs and on marketing of the programs on the American plan. The American plan was specifically refer- red to in Resolution #5, because it would entice people to eat at the facility instead of coming into the community. I modified and put in a new sentence, that is PUD approval shall be conditioned upon approval of said programs and the Aspen Institute operating the facility in compliance with the same. The last paragraph, that is the above requirements or not exaustive and the commission will endeavor to work with the Aspen Institute during the PUD process to identify and mitigate any other adverse effects to the neighborhood and city as a whole. -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fO~" ~ C. f. HOECKEL D. D. & L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 Olof Hedstrom commented that the conceptual ideas have been covered very well and I have only one question. In section 4, paragraph 2, specifically and prior to obtaining PUD approval, does this mean the same as in order to obtain? Ron Stock stated that it may not and should clarify it by saying, in order to obtain. Olof then asked if there are any questions for Ron? Joan Klar questioned the wording of page 3, Section 8, the Aspen Institute is incouraged but not required to phase the construction, if we leave, is incouraged but not re- quired, there is not one single thing we can do and clearly defines what we are attempting to do later and this should be omitted. ~ Ron Stock stated that concerning the proposals that have been made, the first was the change of language in Section 1, and is clearly not part of the compromise. The second recommendation was the limitation on food, beverage retail facilities and were clearly part of the compromise. The thrid item was a clear problem in there not desiring to operate in that manner, but in the problem of financing of the facility if they don't have the opprotunity to operate that way, even though they do not attempt to serve the general public. One of the Councilmembers had argued to how they would enforce this? Section 4, and the item of executive golf is not part of the settlement and may be changed. In Section 5, the multiplication errror was not discussed. In Section 6, the Council beleives that 60% housing faculty is infact a minimum number, but a flexible number based on the fact of actual number of people being employeed, and what types of demands of hous- ing will they have within their group. There is no ob- jection to Section 6. In Section 7, Council was being open to proposals of having livingroom spaces tied into bedroom spaces and there is no objection and is not a part of the settlement. In Section 8, part of this is in the settlement, somewhere we have lost the right to protect the Valley floor of the Roaring Fork Valley. The riding ring is clearly part of the settlement. The set- tlement though not public, is that the riding ring will be open space, but there may be a tradeoff. The trails have not been talked about, because it is not one of the major issues and should be included. Joan's recommenda- tion on phasing is not part of the settlement and no problem. Olof asked to have something in on that phasing to make it not obstinant. Ron stated he would suggest adding in Section 3, a paragraph 9, which would read, in Section 8, delete and add language that phasing is mandi- tory (delete -"encourage but not"). In explaining what "primarily" is, is not a word of ours, and what is in- cluded is questionable and lacks specificity. After some discussion between the members, Olof asked for a poll vote concerning deleting the word "primarily" and change the wording from "daytime" to "full day". Welton Anderson, Joan Klar, Nancy McDonnell and Lee Pardee, favored the change. Perry Harvey and Olof Hedstrom, opposed the change. The change will be in Section 2, paragraph 8. Olof questioned the members to how they felt about Welton's idea of limiting tourist use at certain high seasons when the impact will be most severe? All the members except fORM 10 c. F. HO~CKEL a. a. II L. CO. - -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 Regular Meeting S/C/I Zone - Code Amendment Public Hearing Highway 82 - Resolution 80-05 Swiss Chalet Exception Welton, felt they should not specify such limitations. The actual proposal is only an effort to not eliminate the possibility of further discussion on this idea and retain the right to limit tourist use during high seasons. The poll vote showed all members against this proposal and Welton voted for. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve Resolution 80-06, Aspen Institute SPA Plan as amended. Nancy McDonnell so moved, Lee Pardee seconded. Roll call vote; Welton Anderson, Joan Klar, Lee Pardee and Olof Hedstrom, aye. Perry Harvey and Nancy McDonnell, nay. Motion carried. Sunny Vann introduced the public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code by adding 'Dance Studio' and'Martial Arts Studio' as condi- tional uses in the S/C/I zone district. This commission pursuant to the use determination provision, approved the Aspen Martial Arts & Dance Studio as a conditional use in the S/C/I zone. A motion to initiate an appropriate code amendment and to schedule a public hearing before the Commission was also approved. Olof Hedstrom opened the public hearing and asked for any comments, then since there were no comments, he then closed the public hearing. Welton Anderson moved to recommend approval of a code amend- ment, which would add 'Martial Arts and Dance Studios' as conditional uses in the S/C/I zone districts. Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. After a motion was entertained and withdrawn, Perry Harvey moved to adopt a Resolution 80-05, Recommending Improving the Transportation System by Resolving Auto and Busway Feasibility. Lee Pardee seconded, all in favor. Motion carried. Lee Pardee suggested that the Planning Office draft a note thanking Hans Gramiger for the time he has taken with this resolution with the Planning and Zoning Chair- man's signature, all the members agreed. Sunny Vann introduced the Swiss Chalet Subdivision Excep- tion, requesting an exception from the strict application of the City's subdivision regulations in order to subdivide an approximately 26,988 sq. ft. parcel of land located on the south side of Main Street between Third and Fourth Streets. The parcel consists of nine (9) Townsite lots and a single family residence. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant's request for exception be approved sUbject to the conditions as stated in my memo- randum dated May 15, 1980. The Planning Office recom- mends approval of the applicant's request subject to the stipulations outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated May 15, 1980, and with the additional stipulation that any development of Parcel 2 be subject to Growth Management approval in the event such approval is required. Welton Anderson asked to be excussed and obstained from this action due to conflict of interest. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to recommend exception from the regular subdivision procedures for the Swiss Chalet fORM '0 C.F.HOoC~ELB.B.&L.CO. ,.-c", -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Clark Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 20, 1980 sUbject to the stipulations outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated May 15, 1980 with the addi- tional stipulation that any development of Parcel 2, be subject to Growht Management approval in the event such approval is required and the subdivision reenter the process at final plat before City Council. Perry Harvey so moved, Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Sunny Vann introduced the Bill Clark Subdivision Exemption for purposes of condominiumization. Two structures lo- cated at 317/319 North Fourth Street with no prior rental history, and the applicant occupies one of the single- family residences and the detached second house histor- ically been a guest cottage. The Engineering Department recommends approval sUbject to their memorandum dated May 15, 1980. The City Attorney recommends approval conditioned upon the owner/applicant complying with the six-month minimum lease requirement of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the Attorney's recommendations and the stipulations outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated May 15, 1980. Perry Harvey moved to recommend subdivision exemption for purposes of condominiumization subject to the Engi- neering Department's memorandum dated May 15, 1980 and subject to the six-month minimum lease requirements as stated the the Planning Office memorandum dated May 15, 1980. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lee Pardee so moved, Joan Klar seconded. All in favor, motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. ~._-O;~ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk