Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820406 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR/IlIO C.f.HOECKrLB.B.l!. L. CD. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regnlar Meeting April 6, 1982 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission met for a regular meeting on April 6, 1982 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. Olof Hedstrom opened the meeting vith members Perry Harvey, Jasmine Tygre, Pat Falin, Welton Anderson, Al Blomquist and Roger Hunt present. , CO~illISSIONER'S COMMENTS - Al Blomquist expressed to the Commission the need for planning and the "Lupe trail" idea and the open-space idea.Al Blomquist is on the committe that was asked by the School Board to evaluate the future uses of the upper elementary. Blomquist said that the Commission is going on the fact that if it is already zoned R-6, it is already Plat "d and they can se,1. it for about 14,000 dollars. The second alternative as Blomquist sees it, is to rent parts of the building to various groups for offices. In that case it would have to be re-zoned to Office. Blomquist mentions a third alternative; to possibly sell to the City or doing it on a lease purchase to the City for Park, whereby the City might tear down the worst part of the building and keep the other half and use it as a Community center for these groups. Blomquist asks the Commission whether or not it is worth pursuing the idea that perhaps a public use of this property should be considered. Perry Harvey said that he would like to see it go back to residential. Harvey said that i if there was a real need for Community uses that could be considered but at this time many of the Community Centers are not really being utilized as fully as they should be now. Roger Hunt said that he would like to see either Community or Institutional uses. Hunt does not want to see it commercialized. Olof Hedstrom agrees with Hunt and Harvey's comments. Welton Anderson thinks it should be Institutional or COIT~unity. Jasmine Tygre agrees with Anderson. Pat Falin agrees and does not want to see the property commercial. Roger Hunt comments that the Police Department has been very poor about the utilization of just one space on City Hall side of the street. Hunt conveys SOille interesting information about two restaurants that have been told by their landlord that either they accept a doubling of their rent or their leases won't be renewed. Hunt said that the point he is trying to make is that if this is typical of tb,= landlords in the community, P&Z will have trouble in the long run and it is something the COlmnission should be thinking about. Olof Hedstrom has one comment about the last meeting in which the Commission considered th conditional use of the restaurant in the Old Post Office building. Hedstrom said that Mr. ,Ialton phoned and stated that the project was unanimously approved ~""-t'""jeet;-be- fore the meeting and that the Commission members were paid off to approve it. Hedstrom told Mr. Walton that all of his accusations and implications were totally unjustified and untrue. Alan Richman of the Planning Office asked the Commission if they would be willing to have a Joint City-County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, on April 13, 1982 All members are in favor of the special meeting. Alice Davis of the Planning Office asked the Commission if they would hear an issue on a wo"an t':1at would like to put in an Antique Clothing Restoration Store in the NC district. The Planning Jffice told her that she ought to go for a use determination. This would present a hardship to her in that she has alot of money tied up in the lease and she would like to get a general feeling from the Commission on this. She is also proposing 3 tamale factory to produce tamales in conjunction vith this, but that is a legal use. Each member expersses his or her personal attitude about such a business without a formal statement.Roger Hunt, Al blomquist, Perry Harvey, Welton Anderson do not have 3 problem with this ty~e of use. Jasmine Tygre prefers not give any opinion at this point. Pat Falin doesn't see any problen with this. MINUTES - Roger Hunt said that in the minutes of Nov. 17th, 198'1 second paragraph second page , concerning the codes; it says that because the noise ordinance is based on zoning and there is no zoning for this property it could be enforced; where it should read it could not be enforced. Page number 2 at bottem paragraph it says; zoning the sit. as R-16 it should read R-15. Last paragraph last sentence it should say to say rather than to said. With those corrections Roger Hunt moves to approverthe minutes of. Nov. 17 All in favor. Minutes are approved. Harvey seconds. Hunt moves to table the m1nutes of March 2nd, 1982. Roger Hunt moves to approve the minutes of Sept. 28, 198] ...~.,._~...."-_..~_., , - 2 - .. with the exception of the verbatum statement by Roger Hunt on page 8 which he will correc with the secretary directly. Perry Harvey see onds. All in favor. Motion is carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Proposed Code Amendment to Section 24-12 - Creating Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications. Alan Richman of the Planning Offfice said that this is a Public Hearing and that he will enter into the record his memorandum of April 6, 1982 and the attachments to it. The Planning Office identified six general areas that rezoning applications might be con- sidered up against; 1) Compatibility with surrounding zoning districts/land use. 2) Impacts upon traffic, parking and utility service. 3) Impacts on air and water quality. 4) Impacts on the economy of the community 5) Compatibility with the goals, policies and land use locations of the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended. 6) Whether practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship exists as a result of strict interpretation of the current zoning for the site. . Olof Hedstrom asked the Commission for comments; either whether it is a good time to initiate such an addition or whther the criteria themselves are satisfactory. Al Blomquist said that he would like five to read compatability with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 as amended. Blomquist said that he would like clarification; does that include the tansportation plan and the airport.. what is that amended include? Alan Richman said that when the Planning Office says amended they mean any adopted plan. Al Blomquist said that by taking out goals, policies and land use locations the Planning Office had required the P&Z to review it against the entire plan as amended. Blomquist said that there should be something about the public haelth safety and general welfare. Blomquist said there should also be something about the fiscal abilities of the City should the rezoning action occur. Blomquist feels that the GMP goal balance should be stressed someway. Perry Harvey said that his concern in this is to try and give the applicant as much package of information as specific guidelines as possible. Harvey said that this was very vague as far as what the applicant is suppose to come in with. Al Blomquist asked if it would be proper to before any matter gets to P&Z that the staff write a certification that the application is complete and proper. Alan Richman said that when the PLanning Office receives an application they do typically certify complete. Roger Hunt has a question about the philosophy of annexation and how it relates to this: Is it a property or property owners right giving the meaning of this minimum criteria to he annexed to a City or is it the City's privledge if there is a benefit of annexing this property to annex it? Gary Esary responded to this by saying that it is the City's perogative whether the City moves to annex or moves to approve an annexation petition. Alan Richman said that he could prepare a Resolution with the specific changes that the P&Z wants. Olof Hedstrom now opens the Public Hearing on the Code Amendment Creating Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning applications. Hedstrom asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to that subject, if not Olof closes the Public Hearing and moves on to... B. Loma Alta Annexation Zoning Request. Colette Penne, of the Planning Office enters the memorandum of April 6, 1982, into the Public record as well as any referral comments. The Ferguson Annexation Plat is going through annexation at present and within 90 days the Resolution passed by Council a zoning attachment has to be made to the property that theCity has initiated that zoning action. The Planning Office is suggesting that an R-15 zoning be attached to it. The criteria that the Planning Office is using to evaluate this is, most importantly, how does it fit with surrounding zoning. Present zoning surrounding the parcel is R-6 across from Midland , it is R-15 PUD to the East of the property as well as across Highway 82. Colette said that the zoning action is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan. The Planning Office recommends the the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council that Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Ferguson Annexation Plat be zoned R-15A at the time of annexation of these parcels. Roger Hunt asked if this was a private easement or a dedicated driveway or...? Colette said that it is a vacated street called Chipeta Avenue. Olof Hedstrom opens the Public Hearing for the Loma Alta ANNEXATION. The adjoining property owner to the East said that he has a problem with this. 1) The property that Jeff Costley annexed from the City in 1974 does not join with this property. 2) The entire area is zoned R-15 to the East, which allows all these single family units. Jeff Costley said that there just isn't enough width for road access to the duplexes, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. 1l0EC~EL B. B. 8t L. CO. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Neeting April 6, 1982 - 3 - Al Blomquist said that we could look into possible ways to improve access and certify to Council any of the problems raised at this P&Z meeting. Roger Hunt feels that access to a property definitely relates to what can be developed, Jasmine Tygre is concerned about whether or not the P&Z has any mechanism to restrict the building of the duplexes. Roger Hunt moves to recommend to City Council the zoning of R-15 A for the Loma Alta Annexation - Zoning Request. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS A. Mountain Edge/PUD - Conceptual Review. Alice Davis, of the planning office, would like to enter the memorandum of April 1, 1982 into the Public record. Alice said that the proposal the Commission is looking at tonight will require a rezoning from R-15 to L-2. The applicant is requesting is 68 dorm rooms and 27 free market condominium units and a student cafeteria. The 68 dorm rooms will be for MAA student housing and also used in the winter time for winter time Ski employees. It will be deed restricted in the winter to the City Housing price guidelines and in the summer the MAA will set the rate commensurate with what the students are now having to pay. The 27 free market units will be used, will be sold as free market units but they will be deed restricted to facultv to MAA in the summer time. In order for this to be accomplished there will have to b~ a rezoning to L-2 and RBO rezoning in order to allow dormitory use and allow incresed density also and the GMP exception for the employees of free market units as part of the 70-30 project. Also a subdivision of PUD approval will be necessary. Alice Davis said that the Engineering Department noticed that two items have been on but were not submitted with the application. The vacinity map showing surrounding property and adjacent property o'vuers. A sketch plan will also be needed on which easements and power lines and such are shown. The Planning office had several basic concerns with the project. Alice Davis said that thE first major problem was the short terming of condominiums. The 27 free market units would require an 1.-2 rezoning to be short termed. The Planning office does not think that is appropriate for that area. Alice said that the 1973 Land-Use plan did state that in a mixed residential ca~egory which this falls in only short terming should only be allowed in locations where it currently exists. No new locations should be designated for short terming. The Planning Office feels that this is inconsistent with the land use plan. The Planning Office sees the second major problem as density. The applicant will need an RBO rezoning. The Planning Offfice does not feel that an REO is appropriate at this location. Alice said that the Code states that the RBO should only be allowed in relatively uninvolved areas. The Code specifically states that it should be an appropriate project for the neighborhood. The Shadow Mouncain Citizens group has expressed opposition to the project. Their basic concerns are parking problems, high density, environmental issues, opposed cafeteria and also the dormitory facility. Alice Davis said that the Code states that the RBO should only be used for pure residential projects. The ity Attorneys office has submitted a letter to the P&Z which Alice Davis enters into the record. This.letter states that the REO requires that the primary residential use that the RBO be used for local residnets. The quote from the Code is that it is for primary use by local residents. Davis said that there is a question of whether MAA students are local residents. Alice said that the subdivision of PUD applications in the code are required to be filed under one ownership or either jointly by all owner affected. Alice said that part of the project is under City ownership and there is a question whether this is a proper application. In summary, Alice Davis said that the Planning Office is concerned about the need for housing but their main concern is with the density, short terming and the appropriateness of the RBO application. The Planning Office does recommend that if this site is to be used for !~ housing that maybe the project proposal can be re-worked so that it has a lower density possibly has a ~MF zoning and that wouldn't allow short terming, and that an REO not be allowed, or at least be allowed only if it meets the l:l FAR. Jasmiue Tygre said that she is a little confused about exceptions; i.e. if the free mar- ket units, lets say it is rezoned to 1.-2, the free market units would then come under the overall lodge quota. Alan Richman said that the 70-30 project exception requires that the non deed restricted -"..,-_....,.".".'"~". .,,,...,"..,,,,,,,_. - 4 - units are deducted grom the district quota. Jasmine Tygre said so that it is coming out of the residential quota and not the Lodge quota. Alan Richman agreed. Perry Harvey asked if tfiis 70-30 exemption is in all zones or is it residential? Harvey said that the Planning office said these units would be deducted from a residential quota but he said we are dealing with a lodge zone. Harvey said that we don't have City housing guideline rental restriction on summertime use. Harvey said first of all this is 'not a residential project in that it is partially short term. Alan Richman said that the P&Z might conceivably have a problem when you get to the 70-30 exemption in applying these units. Perry Harvey asked how this 70~30 has been measured? In square footage, #of bedrooms, II of units? Alan Richman said that it is on a unit basis. Roger Hunt feels that apparently it is the applicants rationale for a three month teneancy; what Hunt doesn't understand is given the SEC provisions and given the appli- cants intent to condominiumize the free market units - how are they going to maintain all of those units under the control of one entity so that they can have control of those units so they can rent to the MAA. Hunt said that P&Z went through this with lodges and they were told categorically that it cannot be required that a condominiumized lodge has a single management unit. Hunt said that an accessory to that is how when you a.e going to have simple deed units in the free market units; what is the mechanism that ~ontinues the operation subsidy for the dormitory. Perry Harvey said that when P&Z zoned this R-15 it was stated what was stated in the memo that if they came in with a specific develope ment proposal that P&Z would look at it. The applicant is submitting a conceptual outline. Alice Davis thinks that the Planning office has a full set of conceptual application Davis said if the P&Z agrees with the concept that we do need to go ahead and study it further because there are other issue the Planning Office has to deal with. Olof Hedstrom didn't hear mention the important party of it all that the annexation is not made property housing for MAA students while the use proposed for the property. Olof said there was no mention of free market units in the annexation. Welton Anderson representing the Conceptual review for Mountain Edge/PUD. Anderson said that the applicant is extremely frustrated because three years ago he purchased this property and had it annexed for the MAA. Anderson said that five proposals have been prepared and no of which have gotten anywhere and the applicant wants to know what he can do to provide low cost housing to the music students like he has for the last 21 years at the same levels. Last year the applicant provided 200 rooms in various lodges to many students for $50.00 a week. Anderson said that there is a definite need for this. Anderson told the applicant that from a Planning standpoint he should reduce the density down to a figure that is acceptable to the neighborhood. Welton said that he should provide something that is sensitive to the neighborhood and to the community as a whole. WIt t ld th C " h h' 1 d 'f' 11 e on 0 e ommlSSlon t at t lS an was specl lca y annexed for MAA Housing and at this point there is a critical need for a permanent facility run by the MAA. There are four areas that Anderson will concentrate on: density, parking, mass & bulk and open space. The density is 55% less than what the MAA really needs and it is 100% more than what the neighborhood really wants. The eco- nomic and functional balance that you have to abide that by taking the needs of one and the wants of another and try to reach a happy point in between. Welton reminds the Commission that 72% of this project is deed restricted, low cost employee housing. All the parking for all the projects will be provided underground out of sight at a cost of $5,000 per parking space or$5BO,000 total for the ninety-eight cars required by Code. Welton shows how the mass and the bulk are held back on the model of the project. The open space and amenities, nearly sixty percent of the site is open space. Other open space amenities are restoration of the right of way and on site recreational facilities. The design of each dormitory room includes cooking facilities, this especially necessary for the winter use. Welton Anderson said that as far as the matter of short terming is concerned and the L-2 zoning, the reason behind that is relatively simple - the applicant is not sold on renting this as a hotel. Under RMF zoning you can't get anything more under L-2 zoning that you can get under RMF zoning. The density is presicely the same. RMF is generally limited to tenancies of six months or more. Welton said that by allowing for a short term use of these 27 units in the neighborhood that is, according to the preliminary planning office study is . , 84% short term. Alice Davis said that the RMF zone does not prohibit this project because the requirement in the RMF zone is six month minimum lease. The Planning office is against the short terming and felt that the RMF is more appropriate. Alan Richman said that no multi-family unit with an RMF, 0 and C-l district shall be leased for any period less than six successive months or be leased more than twice for term periods "-" , , - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~o C. F. HOECKEL B. B. .(; L. C~, Aspen Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting April 6, 1982 -5- Welton Anderson said that this proposal is for 136 student beds and 27 one bedrooms for faculty. Which is less than half of what is really needed. Welton said that the table on page 3, of the planning office memo shows that an RBO zoning 120 could be constructed but this application is for 98, so it is not seeking to maximize. It also states that RBO is preferred on undeveloped areas, this area of an acre and a half in size that is as undeveloped as this. The cafeteria is not even on this property and therefore should not even be part of this application. Welton said that at this point the applicant is willing to stipulate that as was the use of the cafeteria in the \'heeler Opera House limited only to music students so shall this be limited only to music students. Another point Welton makes is that at the time of annexation no mention vas made of free market units. The Board should consider that the applicant is coming in and providing housing for the MAA. Anderson said that in the Planning Office summary the Planning office said they would prefer to see a pure employee project but that the neighbors might rather see the free markets saying in one location with the employee units in another. Welton points this out on the model. Welton Anderson feels that the applicant has made every attempt to fill in the neigh- borhood and the Planningoffice,to solicite comments and suggestions, and the applicant is a little bit taken back by the Planning office recommendation. Welton Anderson said that if the applicant could work together with the planning officc and the neighborhood they could come up with something that the community really needs as far as providing something in perpetuity for the music associates. Alan Richman said that he needs to claify something about the statement he made before; the code does define short term period as meaning not more than fifteen days, however, the only thing that you can't short term is a multi-family unit within the RMF, 0 and C-l districts. A dormitory is not defined as a multi-family dwelling it is defined other- wise so a dormitory can be short term. The multi-family portion of it which would be the free market portion of it could not be short termed under the RMF zoning. Alan thinks that the Planning office's point is valid. The RMF can work except for the applicants desire to have the free market units short termed. The RMF will not prohibit short terming of the employee units. Lee Pardee said that when this property was annexed the pupose stated was for MAA employee housing. The use of the 70-30 GMP exemption was never meant, in Lee's opinion, to have projects where twice the square footage is used for free maket units and we look at both the drawings and the model we see that almost exactly twice the square footage is used for the free market units that has nothing to do with the MAA students, who in fact are the people who were supposed to be helped and for which purpose the land was annexed. Welton Anderson said that it was never intended that it would be a generous donation of land and structures but it was always intended that the 30% would pay for the 70%. The reason why these units are dow~ to the bare minimum, is to keep the price of rentals somewhere close to the price of the mortgage. Lee Pardee said that his concern is not the size of the MAA student quarters but his concern is the size of the other building where there is 1450 square feet per unit and that is not within the intent that the City annexed this property. Pardee takes the positi.on that he does not like the balance. Pardee said that the Code recommends although does not requires under this 70-30 provision that 50% of the residential floor area be devoted to deed restricted units. Olof Hedstrom opens the Public Hearing. Carolyn Dotie, acting as spokesperson for the Shadow Mountain Citizens Group. Carolyn enters the memorandum from the Shadow Mountain Citizens Group into the public record. The group feels that the new proposal has many negative features: 1) The cafeteria will be commercial in nature 2) The bulk of the project is too great 3) The lodge zone will permit excessive height 4) The trail proposals are poor 5) The City should keep the 1st Street right-of-way Carolyn briefly states three alternatives to th ese negative features. 1) Of course the neighborhood's first choice for this property is that they would like to see the City purchase this property with the four million dollars authorized by the voters, for a Park. ,"--"..".~~,.."",., ...."~,_._-_.-.-.....---..~,--..._--,....~'"..,-~-,-_.,~ 1.' -...--.- ,.._.-,-" "l'. - 6 - 2) The neighborhood's second choice is that they would like to see the property remain R-15 zoning. 3) The third choice is that they would like to see the Koch land on Cooper and North to the alley extension line zoned RMF/PUD and the remaining Koch land South of the alley extension line zoned P-Park. This park land traded to the City to Cantrup for City owned land on the Rio Grand property. The alternatives are dicussed in more detail, as written in the memorandum from the neighborhood group. In Summary, the neighborhood proposal would be to; approve 27 free market units, zone this portion RMF/PUD or zone it L-2/PUD, zones the 7 half P-Park and for MAA on the RioGrande. Carolyn said that the benefits would be that they could start the free market right now, start the MAA right now, and landscape the Park right now, the MAA could have more units, the neighborhood could remain peaceful and all needs could met by every- one. Spence Schiffer said that we cannot loose sight of the fact that the property was annexed specifically to permit 150 units for the MAA housing project. Schiffer reads Ordinance #76 of 1970. The purpose of this annexation is to facilitatea housing project for the MAA. The property belongs to Hans Cantrup who proposes to build a facility for MAA of 150 rooms to provide housing during their season, as well as a cafeteria. This would be available for lease during winter season. Schiffer said that the applicant has literally "bent over backwards" to try and accomodate the concerns of the neighbors as well as the Planning consultant and the P&Z. Schiffer thinks that this proposal represents a significant reduction in density and impact, this proposal is comprehensive in nature and addresses all of the concerns and deserves serious consideration. Olof Hedstrom now closes the Public Hearing and asks Welton Anderson to bear in mind that the Commission members are attentive to his first presentation, and will now hear his response to all of the points the public made. Welton Anderson does not respond to the Public comments. Lee Pardee said that his major concern is still the same. The fact that 27 free market units are taking up twice as much space as the units that were the intent of the annexa- tion so Lee finds it unacceptable, not because of the density or the objections of the neighborhood, but Lee finds it objectionable because it violates the very intent of the annexation. Jasmine Tygre basicly agrees with Lee Pardee. Jasmine would feel much happier about seeing that kind of density or even that kind of bulk on that particular parcel of land if it was exclusively for MAA housing. Jasmine is also concerned about the size of the free market units as well as their overall presence and especially in what part those free market units will play eventually- are they residences, are they lodge units, are they short term, do they get deducted from the residential quota, how will they affect the balance and what we think are the various types of community needs??? Jasmine said it seems that she has alot of problems with the project as constituted. Perry Harvey said that Jasmine's concernsare the same concerns he has. Harvey said that the P&Z still has to face the issuse that the housing is going to be seasonal, midterm ski area employee or town employee housing in the winter, when the roads are narrow and parking is the biggest problem...Harvey is concerned whether or not the parking which looks like it is maximized for the sight, is adequate for the density and at the ver) least Perry would like to see the 1450 square foot one bedrooms, do not make sense. Perry said said that they do not need to be that big and that he thinks that they should be reduced. Harvey said basicly it is the density and the parking impact. Al Blomquist said that since the City owns part of the sight, it should be said specifica- ly that it wants first street right of way used in this particular way. Blomquist said that since the MAA is the essential feature of the project, and there is no representation at this meeting by the MAA, what are there real needs? Blomquist said that this should go back to the reconsideration by those three parties and they should come with are-study of their own proposal, of the planning office proposal and the neighborhood third proposal Blomquist said that between those three parties, to this action, they could resolve half of the difficulties. Blomquist feels that it is very unfair to throw all of this on the P&Z in one night. Olof Hedstrom said that he agrees to some extent wwith what some of the other Commission members said. Olof said that particularly in spite of the fact that in preparation of this Welton Anderson and the applicant has gone through the process of consulting with the MAA and the neighborhood and everyone else that has an interest in it, still at this point there is not much sight of a community, Olof is recommending that it go right back into the process of working with everyone to accomplish more. Olof said that everyone has heard the Commission members response to the project and that can serve as a little bit of a lever to bring the applicant and the neighborhood and the MAA desires and needs into a more compromising position particularly with the opportunity to give some serious consideration to the neighborhoods alternative proposals. Which as they stand brought some smiles and laughter but still contain serious and worthwhile aspects. Lee Pardee said that he thinks the P&Z has to provide more of a guideline to the applicant Lee thinks Welton has done a very good job and a sensitive job in his use of property. Lee wonders if a "straw vote" on the P&Z's part to the effect that if the applicant came back with a proposal which reduced the ratio between employee and free market units RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM'~ c. f. H otCK EL D. B. !I l. co. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular meeting April 6, 1982 - 7- he would have a chance of getting approved. Olof Hedstrom asked that the specific concerns of the Commission be repeated. Lee Pardee feels there is an imbalance between the size of the employee units and the free market units. Lee would vote affimatively with the same type of density if the ratio"were changed. Lee said that there is 20,OOOsquare feet in employee and there is 39,000 in free market. Jasmine Tygre said that she agrees with Lee about the proportion but she would still go for lower density even if the proportions were reversed. Perry Harvey said that he would like to reduction of the size of the free market units and the number of units is not perfect but yet not totally unacceptable. Perry still has to figure the ratio of parking to that many units. Perry feels that the Planning Office would be wasting everyones time by involving the RioGrande property in MAA housing construction, because that master planning has gone down the road to trades on property to try and put it together, not try to split it out and housing is not a use in that. The only question Perry has about the proposed cafeteria is what is its use in the winter? Al Blomquist favors the neighborhood alternate for obvious reasons, which is the third alternate , Blomquist said that SBA on the Rio Grande is very close and drawing a new site, a decision by Council could be made just as they must make a decision on giving up this first street right-of-way. Al Blomquist does not accept Lee Pardee's alternative. Perry Harveys primary concern is the density on that project as it relates to the traffic and square footage Alan Richman, of the Planning Office said that he thinks that comments mead by both the members of the Commission and the ttotney's office regarding the 70-30 and the RBO make it questionable whether those are the appropriate tools for projects with as many mixed uses as we have here and with the type of site that we have here. Alan recommends that the applicant look very closely at the use of those tools to achieve this type of a project and would also recommend that the applicant look very closely at the need for L-2 zoning in the area. First of all because Richman does not think that is necessary in terms of short terming of the employee side of the project and secondly because the Planning office inventory of lodging accomodations does not show the need to stop rezoning property in this community to accomodate new lodging and L-2 designation which does not jive well with the adopted plan would put a great deal of pressure on properties in the area for additional zonings. The planning office believes that the land was zoned for accomodations as well as your existing accomodations can keep you in a ski area. The planning office has extreme problems with the policy concerns and the technical concerns of the method od achieving that much on that property. The planning office does not want to inhibit the MAA from achieving their employee housing needs. The planning office does not feel that this is the proper mechanism for doing so. Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to table the Mountain Edge PL~ Conceptual matter until the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pery Harvey so moved. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Mtion is carried unanimously. City Plaza Office Building - FAR Bonus Special Approval and GMP exemption for employee housing. Alice Davis enters the memo into the public record. The Planning Office is asking the P&Z to grant approval especially to the requested point.~:l FAR bonus for the City Plaza Office building. The Planning .office is also recomlllending that P&Z recommend to Council that the four employee units at City Plaza be granted GMP exemption subject to the applicant deed restricting these units to the City's low income price guidelines. Lee Pardee moves that the P&Z grant special approval for the requested .5:1 FAR bonus for the City Plaza Office Building. It is also recommended that P&Z recommend to Council that ,the four employee units at City Plaza be granted eMF exemption subject to the applicant deed restricting these units to the City's low income price guidelines. Perry Harvey seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Andrews/McFarlin Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Resolution .........".~..-.._-, -"'-'..'~'.""""'-----'- - 8 - Lee Pardeehas one change or suggestion; number four talking about the trail ease~ent Pardee thinks it should say 20 foot trail easement located by the engineering department or something to the effect to tie it down. Perry Harvey moves to approve the resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granting Subdivision Exception for the purpose of Condominiumization of the Andrews/ McFarlin so conditioned that at the end of item #4 be added be approved by the City Engineering department. Lee Pardee seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Perrry Harvey moves to adjourn this meeting Lee Pardee seconds. All in favor. Meeting adjourned. ~~' , ,