Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19811117 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM II C. F. HOECKEL ~. 8. a L. co. Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 1981 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with Members Anderson, Harvey, Hunt, Pardee, Tygre, Blomquist and Fallin present. Commiss ioners Comments Blomquist brought up the appeal by Lyle Reeder to the GMP lodge competition scoring. Blomquist said he was not satisfied with the defense plan by City Attorney Taddune and Planning Director Vann. Blomquist said the options listed do not clear his name as far as the various accusations are concerned. Blomquist requested copies of the appeals and staff memo be given to the Board. Blomquist requested after the Board reads this material, if three or more agree, to have a closed meeting. Vann said he would like to have the recommendation of the city attorney regarding a closed meeting. Minutes Harvey moved to approve the minutes of October 6, April 14, and September 8, 1981; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, Hedstrom asked City Attorney Taddune his advice on a special meeting requested by Blomquist. Taddune said a special meet- ing would be all right, but a closed meeting would not be appropriate. This should be open to the public as the original meeting was. Blomquist said this does involve an appeal and does involve personnel, it would be more candid if it were a closed meeting. Pardee said he would prefer to have a portion of the meeting an executive session with some open to the public. Hedstrom did not favor an executive session. Taddune said in order to go into executive session, the Commission should vote. Hunt asked what the status of this item was, Taddune said the appeals to the lodge GMP scoring have been filed with the City Council, which they will discuss November 19. Taddune told the Commission there is a potential for litigation. Hunt said if the appeal lees were present at the meeting and could use that as a base for the case, it would be wrong. Taddune said the P & Z has already decided. Pardee said a special meeting would be appropriate. Harvey agreed with a special meeting. Hunt asked what the purpose of this meeting would be; what will be accomplished. Hunt said he saw no benefit of an open meeting. Hedstrom said the meeting is responsive to Blomquist's point. Hedstrom said the story of the whole Commission has been brought into question. Anderson suggested this be handled by Blomquist on an informal basis. Ms. Tygre agreed; Blomquist's justifica- tion of scoring would be interesting, but it is not required. Pardee said this is critical of the whole GMP and the Commis- sion, not just one member's vote. Hedstrom set a special meeting for Wednesday, November 18. Hunt said the City Council passed something on the Rio Grande property and asked what had been approved. Vann said the Council addressed the options of the location of a performing arts center, and they decided the appropriate location was the one in Fritz Benedict's proposal. Alan Richman requested the Commission schedule a special meeting for the R/MF and FARs. The Commission scheduled this for November 24th. u. S. Forest Service Rezoning Alan Richman, planning office, this is a proposal by the forest service to rezone their property. The forest service Mountainedge Annexation Zoning is constructing at the rear of the property. As a branch of the federal government, they are permitted to go ahead with construction, however, they are trying to make the two processes work together. Richman suggested the land be zoned SPA, which would permit a variation of the permitted uses in the zone district. The Commission had requested that R-6 be maintained as the underlying zone district. Richman said the staff agreed with this reasoning, and are asking the commission to sponsor a rezoning to R-6/SPA. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. The Board discussed the use of the dormitory or multi-family structure and what would happen should the forest service sell this land. Richman said this could be discussed when the Board reviews the specially planned area plan. Pardee moved to sponsor a rezoning of the forest service property to R-6/SPA; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, Hunt abstains. Motion carried. Richman told the Commission this property was annexed in 1979; it was never zoned. The City Attorney sent the planning office a memorandum in August 1981 suggested the zoning on this property be pursued as soon as possible. At P & Z's September 28 meeting, the staff suggested an R-15 zoning. There was a concern that R-15 is the only zoning category the P & Z could appropriately consider because that was the zoning category that was published for. There were other issues that were not resolved; the P & Z tabled action and continued the public hearing. Subsequently there was citizen comment at a Council meeting complaining about machinery stored on site and noise problems on the site. Because the noise ordinance is based on zoning, and there was no zoning for this property, it could be enforced. council instructed staff to change the public hearing scheduled on this and to renotice it. Richman said the staff, upon renoticing, recalled the concerns about alternative zoning and consulted with the property owner to insure that all possible zonings considered by published. The staff published for R-15, R-6, R/MF and L- 2 . Richman told the Board there was some confusion about the zoning because of statements made at the Council meeting regarding 150 rooms, the M.A.A. housing. The staff thought about that and about other alternatives, which the applicant has brought to the attention of staff as possibilities for this site. These would include producing employee housing on the site or possibly producing free market housing on the site and employee housing elsewhere. Richman said, consider- ing the possible alternatives, his position on the matter is whatever alternative is proposed for the site, there is no formal application for this site; this is a zoning issue after annexation. Richman told the Commission the rat.ionale for R-15 zoning are several. The property was zoned R-15 when it was part of Pitkin County, which would have permitted four units on the site. R-15 zone in the city would permit six units on the site. Richman stated it is a basic planning principle that zoning an annexation should not result in a substantial upzoning unless there is a demonstration of clear public benefit can be. made. Any upzoning that would occur would be quite speculative in nature since there is no application for this site and there is no method by which the units could be produced. " . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM lG C. F. HOECUL B. O. 8: L. co. Aspen Planning and Zoning -2- November 17, 1981 The staff is hesitant to support an upzoning as any proposal in terms of a model or site plan, which the Commission may conceptually desire, however, until an application is sub- mitted and conditions could be attached, determining that the proposal does achieve a public benefit out of the upzoning as part of the zoning makes the staff hesitant to look at any upzoning. The Board should be looking at appropriate planning practices, which would be to zone the land what it was in the county. The only variation in an upzoning is what does the comprehensive plan for the area. Richman presented a map showing surrounding zoning and surrdouning existing land use. The map shows surrounding zoning as R-15, R-6, R/MF, LOdge/PUD L-l and L-2. Part of the determination needs to be whether this property is more closely associated with tourist-type zoning or whether it is associated with long term residential zoning. What are the planning policies for this area, what does the comprehensive plan suggest. Richman suggested the Aspen Land Use plan suggests this site as a mixed residential area, not as a tourist area. This site backs up on Shadow Mountain, which is an open space resource for the community; it is an undeveloped area, not an area which multi-family development should back up. This neighborhood is one that has been subjected to intense development pressure. The staff is concerned about any upzon- ing of the site which would produce further development pressures upon the neighborhood. The staff is also concerned about development and pressures on Aspen's growth rate. The staff is concerned about upzoning at the same time they are evaluating the build out potential in the community and trying to evaluate what the proper development quota should be. Richman said the alternatives available to the Commission are outlined in his memorandum, ranging from a minimum of six units in R-15 to a maximum of 120 units in the R/MF-RBO zone. The planning office suggests as alternatives the only ones which are acceptable are R-15 and R-6. These zones would enhance the moderate density, long-term residential character of the area and are compatible with the city's adopted plans and policies suggesting this area should be part of a long- term residential neighborhood and the only tourists units in the community should be produced at the base of Aspen mountain. The existing land use in that area, which is multi-family, and is lodge, is either non-conforming or received a downzoning The City of Aspen's adopted planning policies are the key, which suggests that this is a neighborhood and not a short- term area. Zoning the site as R-16 would follow planning practice by giving only a slight upzoning at annexation but would give the Commission the opportunity, when they receive a specific development application, to consider an upzoning. When there is a clear public benefit that can be attached to the upzoning, and when conditions can be attached that if the project is not completed, the upzoning does not occur. An R-15 designation would be in keeping with the open space character of Shadow mountain and with the neighborhood. Richman said it would not be appropriate to do an R/MF designation on a speculation that the city may get an employee housing project out of the upzoning. ..........u.._. Hedstrom said he found the planning office memorandum and arguments very persuasive. The possible uses that might be presented at this time in non-specific applications are pertinent to the Board's deliberations; it is important. Pardee said in an instance like this, with an annexation for a special purpose, the Board has an obligation to the land owner to see what that purpose is. Blomquist said this matter is complex that some of the complexities should be clarified. Blomquist said the property owner has a right to speak at this hearing. Hunt noted the Commission has dealt with this before and has some idea of what the property owner wants to do. There is an immediate annexation problem. Hunt said he felt the property should be zoned R-15 but indicate to the land owner, when the Commission gets an application, they would be willing to sponsor a zoning change if appropriate. spencer Schiffer, representing the land owner, stated in view of the history of this project, to zone this anything other than R/MF or L-2 would be raising serious legal issues. Schiffer handed out some material. Schiffer said they were not prepared to go at this time and were counting on February to which time the public hearing was continued and when they would be prepared to submit a specific proposal. Schiffer asked the letter and exhibits be included into the record. Schiffer presented a chronology of this application. Schiffer told the Board his client, Hans Cantrup, took an option on this property hoping to develop an M.A.A. housing project. This project would require an annexation, zoning to R/MF or L-2, and in addition to that an overlay. At that time, every- one supported this proposal, including the then-housing director, who wrote a memo which is attached to Schiffer's presentation. Schiffer told P & Z the City council supported the proposal, they adopted the annexation ordinance unanimouslj The M.A.A. also supported this proposal. Schiffer told P & Z the annexation took place November 26, 1979, and it was specifically annexed as the Council minutes indicate for the purpose of this M.A.A. housing project. On December 18th, the P & Z scheduled a public hearing on the zoning issue, which was continued to January 8, 1980, and it was then cancelled. This project was dependent on R/MF zoning and on the REO ordinance, which was controversial and took four months between first and second reading. Schiffer told P & Z the planning office did not want the property zoned until the REO was in place because they did not want the property zoned R/MF and then find out that the RBO would preclude the project. At that point, someone dropped the ball. Schiffer said the M.A.A. still wants and desperately needs the housing, this seems to be the last available site for it. The owner still wants to develop this project. The question is, why is the Board considering anything that would preclude the project. Schiffer asked where the opposition was coming from, it is coming from the inhabitants of the immediate neighborhood, which is to be expected. These residents would like the land to be zoned park. The planning office is also opposing this; two years ago, they supported the project. Schiffer said the rationale of not upzoning in an annexation is a basic planning principle, this should be set by the Board. Schiffer stated an .M.A.A. housing project is clearly a public benefit and of public interest. Schiffer told the Board he had asked for additional time to come before them with a specific proposal; unfortunately, the City Council felt P & Z should act right now. Schiffer said he had no choice but to come forward. For the staff to said that zoning "'/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM!G C.F.HOECULO.B.& L. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission -3- November 17, 1981 to R/MF is speculative without a specific proposal and then not allow the applicant time to get a specific proposal is absurd. Schiffer said this property is on the borderline of property used for short-term uses versus those as residential uses. Schiffer strongly disagreed that the surrounding zoning consists primarily of anything other than R/MF. Schiffer presented a map outlining this; there are 27 lots zoned R/MF; 9 lots zoned L-l and approximately 4-1/2 lots zoned R-15. Schiffer said this property is a perfect buffer zone, this is something in between short-term use and residential. The appropriate zone would be L-2 or R/MF not R-15. Schiffer said the Board has to balance the interests of those in the immediate neighborhood against those of the community at large. Schiffer presented a petition to the Board for the record containing 480 signatures of people who support the R/MF zoning. Schiffer told P & Z there are three alternatives for the M.A.A. project; (1) locate it on the Koch property and use another site for the free market portion of the project, (2) free market on the Koch property and the M.A.A. somewhere alse; (3) combine the two projects on one site. Schiffer reiterated in view of the history of this, the Board is ill advised to consider anything that would preclude what was intended to be an M.A.A. housing project and the reason the property was annexed. Mark Danielsen showed P & Z some scenarios for this project. One is what was proposed in 1979 when the annexation was first done, which shows 120 residential employee studio units of 350-400 square feet each with swimming pool and cafeteria and all facilities contained on site. The second scenario was a pure free market project where the M.A.A. project could be placed elsewhere; however, they have not been able to find another site. The third scenario would have a residential bonus overlay, a 70/30 project, combining the M.A.A. project along with free market units at a total of 100 units. Richman said no one in the planning office has made any state- ment they will not support this project. The planning office will withhold comments about a specific proposal until they receive a specific proposal. The staff questioned whether it was appropriate at this point in time to consider an application for a multi-family project when an application does not exist. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Fred Smith asked if this discussion included the entire Koch lumber property, or just that that has been annexed. Part of the property was already in the city. Richman said the part in the city is zoned R-15; that annexed part is R-l5/PUD in the county. Mike Clement pointed out that the lots over there are differ- ent sizes; the lots surrounding the Koch property are all R-15 except for one piece of L-l. Clement said he did not feel this was a good location for M.A.A. housing. This should be kept to the annexation zoning rather than projects, which are totally out of context. Annie Cook, adjacent property owner, said she had heard that the M.A.A. was not sure this is what they wanted. Hedstrom said earlier it was the consensus of the Commission they should listen to the ..- . . ~- I." proposals of the landowner. John Doremus, members of the Board of M.A.A., told P & Z this project is an important need for them and they need it desparately. It appears they will loose over 100 beds in the next year. Marge Riley, long time resident, said she felt the growth was unbelievable and is very nervous and worried about it. There are already difficult parking problems. How does the community know that in two years this will still be M.A.A. housing. Irma Prodinger agreed with Mrs. Riley. This neighborhood has been built on and is changing rapidly. The life style there is diminishing. Norma Dolle, lodgeowner in the area, is protesting 120 units as too dense. The rooms for music students are only used 9 weeks. The parking in this area is an enormous problem. Norma Dolle stated she was against 120 units, it would be like the Gant. Norma Dollec said they lodge music students at their lodge. If this is employee housing, what happens to the employees for those 9 weeks, are they kicked out. Carol Blomquist, lodgerowner in the area, told the Board they have housed both M.A.A. faculty and students. This housing is only needed for nine weeks. There are other facets to look into for M.A.A. housing. Ms. Blomquist said she favored R-15 zoning. Carolyn Doty object to the project for the reasons that have already been stated. Ms. Doty is in favor of R-15 zoning. Aspen does have a growth problem. Zoning this R-15 would give the planning office time to take a look at this neighborhood. Mary McCarten said she is strongly opposed to R-15 zoning because the best use of that zone would be duplexes. There are already huge, uncared for duplexes in this area. Does the M.A.A. really need 120 rooms on this land. Dave Ellis urged the P & Z to zone this land R-15, it is currently unzoned, which is a real problem. This has been used as a construction site all summer. Kathy Goldstein said she felt employee housing was using a catch phrase to get projects people want, often projects are not presented as what they are. Bill Waters objected to this, if it is turned into employee housing, there will not be any parking. There isn't any parking right now. Suzanne Yvette opposed to this large project for ecological reasons, being backed up against Shadow mountain could cause potent ion smog problems. This will short circuit access to Shadow mountain park. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hedstrom summarized the comments on what might happen to the property should be thrown out because there is no specific proposal to consider. These possibilities do not exist. Those problems will arise when the p & Z gets a specific proposal for the use of this property. The problems can only be considered, adjusted and evaluated in reference to a specific proposal. Hedstrom concluded that zoning for a vague, indeterminate use and development, which was present innumerable problems, should not enter into this consideration. The arguments of the planning office and their conclusion is compelling to Hedstrom. Hunt agreed with these comments. Hunt said when and if this property gets upzoned is when the Board gets a specific plan and the Board knows if these will be to a community benefit. Hunt said he felt it was completely inappropraite ., , FORMIC C,F.HOECKELO.9.al.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Code Amendment - Commercial GMP Small Projects Exemption -4- November 17, 198~ to zone the land R/MF at this time. Hunt said if it is the consensus of the Board to zone the land R-15, he would encourage a statement that when a specific proposal does come in, given the history of this property, that assuming it is a proper proposal, the Board would be willing to sponsor the zoning change at that time. Anderson agreed; Pardee agreed. Schiffer pointed out the map, if one looks at the character- istics of the neighborhood, it is R/MF in nature. Danielsen stated this area is not R-15 but is R/MF and outlined the buildings in the area, all surrounding properties are R/MF in use and nature. The history of this entire annexation was for an R/MF use. Pardee moved that the 1.27 acres between Garmisch and First streets and between Cooper and Durant known as the Koch lumber company be zoned R-15 with the proviso that should the applicant come forward with a specific application for use on the site, that after review by Planning and Zoning, they sponsor, if they are in agreement with such proposal, the rezoning of the parcel rather than waiting for the once a year rezoning; seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Alan Richman said this has come about resulting from previous discussions on amendments in the commercial competition. This was presented to P & Z in October; Richman's memorandum summarizes the issues and the propos am from the P & Z on this. P & Z asked to look at these expansion should only be permitted in buildings five years old. The exception should permit requests for not only mechanical and storage space but for commercial and office space. P & Z suggested how the review procedure could be handled. The P & Z also said there is no reason for a maximum size limit. Richman said staff evaluated these suggestions and what they would mean. The main reservation of staff is that these seems to contradict the comprehensiveness of the GMP. The GMP has a competitive process based on the benefit of a project to the community. There are exceptions to the process, which are also based on community benefit. An exception has not been considered on hardship in the process on one's ability to compete. Richman said any expansion in commercial or office would have an impact on the community. Richman pointed out in his memorandum some tests to give to an exception and compares the two proposals. Richman said the staff did not find that the alternative proposal holds water. The staff found there was a public purpose in allowing business to slightly expand but were concerned about the cumulative impact outside the GMP. The staff was concerned about the proposal being defensible and the growth oriented impacts. The staff agrees with P & Z's basic point, there is some discrimination against the smaller project competing with the larger projects. Richman said a small project should not be exempted because it is small; it should compete against other small projects. Hunt project up a commercial use that had to remodel a stair- ~. -~~.~".".... ,. Proposed Code Amendment - Definition of Subdivision to include Lodges Historic Designation well, which would add 20 square feet to the commercial use; how would this be dealt with. Pardee suggested looking at these small expansions once a year. Hunt questioned where the line would be drawn. Blomquist said he felt the process had created an incentive for replacement rather than small remodelling. Harvey pointed out if a commercial use came in for an exception of 250 square feet for mechanical and storage, the existing 250 square feet may well be turned into retail and commercial. Hedstrom said he felt it would burdensome and unnecessary to have a competition for these small additions. Perhaps little additions could be handled administratively. Richman pointed out how well can the city defend a plan when loopholes are being created. Blomquist said by allowing small expansions in existing businesses, rather than replacement, is actually achieving the goal of GMP faster. The Commission said this may be addressing too many items at one time. Hunt said he would like the 250 square feet of mechanical and storage to be reinstated as an administrative review, rather than come to the Commission. Pardee said the guideline this should be reviewed by is replacing existing mechanical space with retail space, if the staff has a questio~ it should be reviewed by the P & Z. Richman summarized the Commission's feelings; (1) under 250 square feet there should be an administrative review procedure, and (2) they do not accept the proposal for competition for small projects, this needs further investigation and a solution needs to be arrived at. Pardee suggested looking at a percentage increase. Hedstrom pointed out an expansion to a very large building would increase the impacts. The Commission requested staff to come back with a simple and direct approach incorporating P & Z's concerns. Harvey said this includes under 250 square feet reviewed by the planning office; the P & Z will review any project, the key is this show no or minimal impact on the community. Harvey moved to table this to November 24, 1981; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, planning office, presented a memorandum which outlines the process. This presents eleven structures in the top two categories of the historic inventory, excellent and exceptional. Both Council and HPC has committed to pursuing designation of these top two categories with or without owner approval. Of these eleven structures, Ms. Penne received a negative response or no answer. Ms. Penne told the Commission the six month moratorium expires this week, and this ties up the designation program. If P & Z approves this, it will go to a joint hearing with the HPC. The report from this joint hearing will go to Council, who will also have a public hearing. The owners will have two opportunities to oppose this. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 8l-l6;provided that in addition to the criteria specified in the memo dated 17 November 1981, specifically a, b, and C, that for the Commission's purposes criteria included can the substance of the individual protest when it comes to hearing could be included as part of the recommendation to Council; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. (Hedstrom left the meeting.) ......1 FORIIlIO C.F.HOECKElB.8.&L.CO. v. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves -5- Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Amendment to Condominium Plat Park Central West Resolution Airport Master Plan Update November 17, 1981 Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request to amend a condominium plat based on a surveryor's error. under Section 20-2l(b) of the Code. The city attorney suggested staff make sure this is an engineering or survey error before final approval. The planning office reoommends granting an amendment to the condominium plat for Park Central West. The applicant told P & Z he wanted to indicate another condo- minium unit which had always been in the plan but had not been shown on the plat. This does not change the usage or square footage. Blomquist moved to approve; seconded by Harvey. All in favor, Hunt abstained. Motion carried. Blomquist removed to amend- ment to the condominium plat of Park Central West Condomini- ums; seconded by Harvey. All in favor, Hunt abstained, motion carried. Alan Richman presented the resolution 81-15 and corrected #1 under "Be It Further Resolved" that the highway be moved to the east of the airport rather than the west and eliminate references to alternative 2. Blomquist requested it state move along the river bluff for maximum possible land area between the runway and the highway. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 81-15 with the corrections stated up; seconded by Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt moved to adjourn at 7:45 p.m., seconded by Harvey. All in favor, motion carried. ~