Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.special.19820928 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKEL8.S.ft l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 1982 Special Meeting The Planning and Zoning Commission met on September 28, 1982 at 5:00pm in the Council Chambers for a Special meeting. Members present were: Olof Hedstrom, Jasmine Tygre, Lee Pardee, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt and Al Blomquist. Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment Alan Richman of the Planning Office stated the applicants request: This is an appliaation by the City of Aspen to subdivide the existing golf course property into four distinct parcels, these being the golf course, the Plum Tree Inn and two employee housing sites, and to rezone each parcel into an appropriate zone district. The City Council is also initiating at this time, a zoning code amendment to create a new zone district, "The Golf Course Support Overlay District." Alan said that the language of the referendum which the voters did approve is included in the September 1, 1981 memorandum by the Planning Office. The background of this application is summarized in the memo also. Alan Richman enters the memo into the Public record. There are comments received form the Water Dept., Metro Sanitation District and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, indicating that utilities are ava4able to service the Plum Tree Inn and the empoyee housing sites. The Engineering Department, The City Attorney and The Plan- ning Office had review comments. The Planning Office Recommendation is for approval of the Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision. The Planning Office asks that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a report to Council endorsing the creation of the Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. Olof Hedstrom opens the Public Hearing. Harold Harvey, owns Lot #7, and said that there should not be any concern about how far the Water Dept. Director lives from his job. Sandy Frame, is presently living in a house which would be overlooking the employee housing that is being proposed. She is very much opposed to this housing along with the other neigh- bors. Mr. Frame, lives in 10t#2 and he feels that these two houses would totally obstruct the view of the mountain. He is sympathetic to employee housing however; but he can't think of a worse use of land than using that particular land for employee housing. Francis Whitaker mentions 10 years ago when Texas Int. Petroleum came in with a total subdivision, on that acreage...Francis was on the City Council at that time and the voters had approved the 1 cent sales tax for open-space. The prime purpose of that six-penny and this purchase was to protect it from developement. Francis Whitaker's last comment on the issue is "Hands Off The Open Space." Jim Breasted concurs with Francis Whitaker. Michael Gassman lives on Silvefking Drive, he feels very stongly about preventing develope- ment in the West End. Chuck Lions feels that the property was bought for open space and should remain open space. Carolyn Diefenbaugh, lives on Silverking Drive and her views are those that have already been expressed. She feels there should be more recreational focus for the land and as much as possible Carolyn Dotie agrees with Mr. Whitaker and the fact that employee housing and open space are two separate issues and neither one should be destroyed. Olof Hedstrom closes the Public Hearing. Lee Pardee said that this is one-of-a-kind overlay. Lee asked why they should have any permitted uses, he said that all of the uses ahould be conditional. Perry Harvey feels that any applicant should be given something to rely on. Lee Pardee does not think the Board can define specifically or finite enough what a recrea- tion facility should be. Olof asked the Board what they think about the permitted uses as described and listed in the Planning Office memo, or Lee's idea to make all the uses conditional. Jasmine Ty~re agrees with Perry and thinks that some kind of a definition should be given to an applicant. Welton Anderson can see recreational as being conditional. Roger Hunt would like to make the lodge restaurant, bar and conference and swimming pool permitted use and everything else in the list is conditional. Perry Harvey thinks the purpose of this from a City standpoint is under condition of sale they would require a developer to come in an supply these items that they want. Perry thinks it is important that the facility th-at is out there should be supportive of the golf course and of the City recreational land. Perry thinks it is important that those uses be outlined. ".".-~---_. - 2- Al Blomquist agrees with Roger Hunts statement. Olof Hedstrom , thinks that on the permitted uses they should remain all permitted uses with the exception of recreation building. Alan Richman said that the request before the Commission are simply to send to Council some action on Golf Course Support Overlay District, the creation of it. Al Blomquist moves the approval of the Resolution #39 and changing the permitted uses to remove the words recreation building and add housng:.Jor lodge employees. Welton Anderson seconds. Al Blomquist amends the motion to include PUD. Welton Anderson amends his second. Olof Hedstrom Aye Jasmine Tygre Aye Welton Anderson Aye Lee Pardee Aye Perry Harvey Aye Al Blomquist Aye Roger Hunt Naye Motion Carried. Golf Course Properties Subdivision - Conceptual Submission Alan Richman said that he thought that most members of the Commission would like to have a sight visit as a first requirement. Lee Pardee does not think the Board should make categorical decisions on Land-Use. Al Blomquist moves the approval of conceptual submission subject to the elimination of the two residential lots for employee purposes and the addition of a third parcel at the Plum Tree site to describe the area occupied by the current parking lot and golf pro shop. Welton Anderson seconds. Roger Hunt would like to see this in the form of a request for a resolution and glvlng the appropriate words concerning parcels 3&4, Lots 3 and 4 in the subdivision indicating to Council this type of peace-meal Planning. Al Blomquist would like to amend the motion that it be required that on the Golf Course parcel that the Golf Course parcel be deed restricted to Golf Course use in perpetuaty. Olof Hedstrom asked that the motion be repeated. Al Blomquist repeats the motion; 1) that the two lots be delete , Parcels three and four be deleted and that in the area of the Plum Tree proper a third lot be created bounding the existing parking lot and pro shop, and that the Golf Course parcel be restricted to open space in perpetuaty. Jasmine Tygre seconds Al Blomquist Aye Jasmine Ty~re Aye Boger Hunt Naye Perry Harvey Naye Olof Hedstrom Naye Welton Anderson Naye Lee Pardee Naye The motion is defeated. Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to recommend approval for the Golf Course Properties Subdivision with a resolution to be returned to this Commission for approval but deleting cration of the parcels 3 and 4 and the addition of another parcel encompassing the parking lot area adjacent to the PLum Tee Inn Roger Hunt so moves. Welton Anderson seconds All in favor except Al Blomquist. Motion carried Public Hearin~ - Mountain Ed~e Annexation Zonin~ Alan Richman said that this is a property of about an acre and a quarter. Richman shoows the perimeter by pointing out areas of green on the map. Richman stated that this property was annexed back in 1979. It was called the Mountain Edge Annexation on about an acre and a quarter and the Colorado revised Statutes require that within 90 days that property should have been brought before the Commission for Zoning. A hearing was scheduled back in January of 1980. The Planning Office found a notice that the hearing was canceled before it even got to the Public Hearing stage. The Planning Office doesn't know why it was canceled and it should have been rescheduled but never was. It is possible that this had something to do with plans which were ongoing for the Aspen Institute property since the minutes of the City Council meeting clearly illustrate that the the property was annexed for aMAA Housing project. So nothing happened and it came to the attention of the City Attorney who found out that since no zoning action was taken within the 90 days required by Statute that the Comission has no authority. Richman said that all of the municipal restrictions don't apply to that property. So the City is taking action trying to make up for its negligence. Richman said that the applicant has been extremely cooperative and has followed the line of the law completely. Richman said that looking at the zoning of the property , there really is not a basic criter- ia in the code that helps in making a zoning or rezoningtype of a decision; however, ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.a. l. co. Aspen Planning and Zoning - 3- September 28, 1982 the Planning Office has been trying to develope some criteria as part of theCode amendment and part of the general streamline. Richman suggests six criteria to the Commission for consideration. 1) Compatability with surrounding zoning districts asregards neighborhoo( characteristics, area and bulk requirements, and on-site suitability characteristics. 2) Impacts on traffic, parking and availability of utilities. 3) Compatability with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended, in terms of goals, policies and general locations of land use districts. 4) Impacts on the economy of the community 5) Impacts on air and water pollution. 6) Whether practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship can be documented as a result of strict interpretation of current zoning requirements for the site. Richman said that when the land was in the County it was zoned R-15 which is a more restric- tive zoning than the City zoning. The County is sim ply a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum per unit whereas the City R-15 is in the 10,000 range. Richman said that the City Council minutes do reflect the annexing into the City was for the purpose of upzoning for a development. Richman thinks that one question that should be resolved is whether an MAA multi-family development continues to be an appropriate consideration, at this point in time on that property. Richman asked that the members note that the site does back directly onto Shawdow Mountain, which is completely undeveloped and any Muti-family developement up against Shadow Mountain could be considered incompatable. Richman said as far as Land Use Plan considerations, the site is designated as mixed residential Land Use Plan. The Planning Office has a copy of the Plan if anyone needs to look at how that designation relates to the designations around it. It is bounded by both commercial and accomodation designation. Richman said that it is right on the edge of the commercial core district as well as the lodging district on the Land Use Plan and it falls right on the first lot of the mixed residential concept for landuse planning. Richman mentioned also that the landuse plan specifically did encourage lodge development at the base of Aspen Mountain and didn't encour' age it in other areas of town. As far as lodge development this property owner does not seem particularly interested in that type of designation. It appears they are interested in more Multi-family type of designation. Richman said that the Planning Office is not in- terested in "joining the band wagon" or the interest of the community towards creation of additional lodging area, either by rezoning non-conforming lodges to conforming uses by increasing the lodge quota, Richman said there are so many things going on in terms of the lodge quota, in terms of the lodge issuse with the GMP. Richman is asking that these issues be resolved. The Planning Office is just not anxious at this time to create additional lodge in capacity, particularly away from the Mountain. Creation of this at the mountain itself may be very desireable. Richman said that the neighborhood is very concerned about this property, that they consider this property their own, its part of the neighborhood as far as they are concerned, it is not related to Aspen Mountian and it is not related to Shadow Mountain...it is related to the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, they consider the development on this property which is compatable with that neighborhood , is very important at this point in time. That neighborhood has been severely impacted by recent developement of duplexes and multi-family development and all kinds of development in which they don't find to be in their best interest. The interest the property owners have transmitted to the Planning Office at this point in time is to keep the density down. This property is right up against Shadow Mountain and it seems to the Planning Office that a limited R-15 which is located directly on that property part of it is zoned R-15 at the present time, as well as land directly to the North of the zone R-15, the Planning Office at this point in time feels that is the most appropriate way to go.. The applicant has placed a memorandum in to the packet asking that you not take an action on this application. The Planning Office feels that it is important that an action be taken since the Planning Office has, unfortunately been so negligent in their duties. The applican would like to come forward with a develop,ment plan at some point in time. The Planning Office would be very receptive to that Development Plan and if that plan is desired by Plan- ning abd Zoning and by Council, rezoning to accomodate could occur at some future point in time. The Planning Office feels that at this point in time that the most appropriate zoning is R-15 and do not feel it is appropriate for the Planning Office to be waiting for development proposal before the Planning Office takes some action. Olof Hedstrom said that the P&Z have the memorandums from the applicant and that they have been read and studied. Hedstrom asked if the applicant would like to respond. Mark Danielson, representing Cantrup, said that he would like to make a few brief points: _"'_"..,_.,.......,'~,~ ,"<1 ..., ."'~,,"'."','".__......._. -4- Danielson said that going back to the history of the project, it was petitioned by the owner of the parcel for annexation so that it may be brought into the City boundaries and not remain in the County R-15 area. The purpose for the annexation was to create a high density on the RMF project that was conceived and presented before Council in November of 1979 showed some 120 studio type units about 350 or 400 square feet each that would help to provide employee housing for the MAA the Council did see the project and it did look at the surrounding neighborhood. Danielson said that in accordance with the surrounding area and a request by the landowner the subject parcel was annexed. Danielson said that no one knows why it was never followed up for the zoning. The soul purpose for the annexation was to create an RMF project on that area. It seemed at that point in time to be com- patable with the Aspen Area General Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and the intents ~nd ~oals of s~me MAA employee housing. The project that was presented at that point ln tl~e ...Danlelson shows the original schetches and drawings presented in 1979 was of a project on the Koch lumber property site. It was for the MAA seasonal employee housing Since t~a~ time there have been several developments; 1) the RBO overlay zone, which . was antlclpated at that point in time but not in effect at that point in time. The Council received this proposal and considered this to be an appropriate project tor the area and henced annexed the Koch Lumber site into the city. Danielson said that since that time the RBO has come into effect and there has been formed the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood, or some name similat to that. Danielson said that it is interesting to point out that the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood is very interested, or one of their primary concerns is in the transportation impact over the entire area. One of the intents, even at that point in 1979 was to create a transportation system for buses and cars alike but connecting from Durant going around the base of the mountainCMark is pointing these areas out on an ilustration). The Shadow Mountain Neighborhood could possibly benefit and have expressed as one of their concerns is the closing of Garmisch street here, so that this would no longer be a street and Cooper down here, so that Garmisch would then circle around down here and by-pass this whole entire area, and this would be closed off here and busses could go all the way around down through here, buses cars what have you. What Danielson is saying is; The project, in and of itself even at the point in 1979 is to try and eliminate the trans- portation impact, as the Shadow Mountian Neighborhood is trying to put forth. The location of these streets could certainly be a benefit to the area as a whole, so the point Danielson is trying to make is; originally the annexation, the soul purpose of the an- nexation, was to do a higher density type project to help eliviate employee housing problems that the area was seen to be consitent in terms of the zoning of the Aspen Area General Plan and surrounding RMF, which extends all the way over to L-l zone. Danielson said that it borders basicly on the higher density, mutifamily use. Danielson submits that it would be only appropriate to follow that type of thinking and the purpose of the annexation to zone this parcel not R-15, which it was taken out of the County and brought into the City, but to zone it in deed, RMF. Mark would think that it might be appropriate, perhaps to even do a site inspection to see the different types of lodges that are in that area. Mark said that it has also been proposed that the bike trail and hikimg trail be the new 80-40 greenline, at which point development would not be above that bike trail, but it would cease at that point, and everything above that point would be the Shadow Mountain Park greenline. Ro~er Hunt asked if Mark could Mark Danielson pointed out on down further. Olof Hedstrom asked if the notation of the bike trail is critical to the discussion at this time and suggested that they get back to the subject, Mark Danielson said that after this parcel was annexed there now exists several other options which c an be taken for this particular parcel. This parcel was annexed before the RBO came about., and hence the only record to provide the employee housing aspect was the parcel itself but since that point in time we have the split site single project type of development we have seen in some of the Gl1P applications and it may be possible that if a 120unit or higher density type use is not appropriate then perhaps this site could be used as a two site single project entity, whereby the other employee units could be created off-site. Spencer Schiffer, from Garfield and Hecht , said that Mark has covered everything from a Planning point of view, but Spencer has one serious legal objection to this and that is to reinterate and emphasis that this annexation was done specifically with the intention of zoning to 1lI1F, and in order to facilitate this MAA housing project. Schiffer continued by saying that if you take a look at the cronology since that time, two years have gone by Alan raised the question he didn't understand why there was a hearing scheduled and then dropec and Spence thinks he has the answer after doing some research that is because it was in anti- cipation of the RBO which was adopted in May of 1980, Spence said that he thinks that what may have happened in the interim was that through some oversight the City didn't realize that it had this burden of actually rezoning a property within 90 days. Spence said that what he thinks is happening now is that the City is reacting rather than looking at this from an object ive point of view considering all the various possibilities for land use point of view, the City is simply reacting to a conceived problem, which really isn't a problem. Spence has communicated with Paul Taddune, City Attorney, and Paul said that he is willing to stipulate that the applicant will not pursue any application whatsoever during this period of delay. What the applicant would like to do is to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to delay describe the 80-40 a plan the way the on that. line goes and said that the bike trail is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM ~O C. F. HOECK El e. B. II L. co. -5- any decision, table any action until the applicant can meet further with the Planning Dept. and come up with some cohesive comprehensive proposal that is going to make alot more sense froma land use Planning point of view. Olof Hedstrom now opens the Public Hearing on the Mountain Edge Annexation Zoning. Hedstrom reads a letter and enters it into the record from Albert and Myrtle Growsen; In as much as our property is dying in opposite to the proposed Mountain Edge Annexation, we would like to protest the zoning of the Koch Lumber property to R-15, since we cannot attend the meeting we use this letter to express our protest. Carolyn Dotie lives in that neighborhood and she has been part of that neighborhood group that is very much concerned about the impact of the neighborhood, she does not own property there but she lives there and is concerned that the neighborhood is too built up at this point. Carolyn is concerned about the impact, the parking problem, which already exists and concerned about the view of Shadow Mountain. Olof Hedstrom would like to add the list of names inbo the record of pepople who were in atten, ence for the last meet in which the Commission didn't get to this matter. Carolyn said that they should be added as being for the zoning of R-15. Mar~e Riley said that they have had some impaction inthis area and the neighbors have been ~ry con~erned about it. She said that Council had taken a walking tour all through the neighborhood. She feels one of the biggest problems the neighborhood is having right now is the lack of Parking. She said that in the summer there were not enough places for people to park in the City so they were spilling over into the side streets. Marge Riley said that whatever is going to built there she hope they will take into consideration adequate off-street parking. She said that group of citizens are very concerned about the impact in the neighborhood. Annie Cook said that she is in favor of R-15. She would like to see the density kept down as low as possible . Mike Clements and he lives across the street and would like to ask if this project is viable at this point? Olof Hedstrom said let me clarify what is before this Commission, this is a zoning, there is n no project, the Commission in determining the zoning will have to consider what the zoning allows in the type of project that would be permitted under the zoning which the Commission determines. Mike Clements said that it was stated that it was surrounded mostly by RMF and it is not, if the Commission looks at that map obviously half of that land is R-15. This land was moved out of the County into the City for the soul purpose of getting an R-15 City zoning rather than an R-15 County zoning which most of that property is surrounded by. As we all know the County Zoning is more restrictive. Clements closes by saying that he is in favor of the R-15, and would like to see it donated as a park. Spence Schiffer said that in support of what he had said earlier and to refute what the previous speaker said about the intention of the zoning, to zone it R-15. Spence has the minutes of the Nov. meeting. Olof Hedstrom said that the Commission has that. Olof Hedstrom closes the Public Hearing. Lee Pardee said that his general feeling is that the annexation was done at a time when there was a critical need for employee housing, both short term, MAA type and the longer term , Lee said that the Commission had a housing study done at the time which instigated all of this we now have another one in process. Lee said that he would be more than willing to accept the stipulation by the Cantrups that nothing be done until we bring it up or until it is brought up in a proposal form and that not be done until a housing study be done, so the Commission knows exactly what kind of need ans short fall there is now and then we'll look at the zoning at the sam e time we look at a proposal, Lee said nothing would happen in the mean time if they had that stipulation Roger Hunt agrees with Lee Pardee but on top of that Roger feels that this is a rather key piece of property in the community and the community has been talking about upgrading etc. etc concerning lodge unti facilities. Roger said he is not disposed in the lodge unit facility area, at thispoint but he does not think it is something the Commission should lock out in that the possibility for that property being a key piece of property; it is on the transportation route, it does there is something we have to look at and not necessarily agree with but something we have to look at is the factor in this whole planning process. Roger would like that not locked out in the Commissions considerations. Al Blomquist said that he has a problem with any land that is unzoned and also the notice that was published specified R-15 and to his knowledge once you have set in the notice that you are considering R-15 you may not consider in that same notice any higher or heavier zoning, it must be less. Al thinks that the stipulation is binding that there be no action ,~'....... --_."'~...._-~. on this property, then Al would go along with it, but he really thinks it ought to be zoned something, and frankly believes it ought to be zoned without delay but with some kind of perhaps agreement that we acknowledge that annexation is contractual that some sense of agre- eemtn by Conncil is made that there should be some density on this property. Clef Hcdotrom welcome the opportunity not to make a decision on the zoning. Olof said that this is an important decision and has many ramifications which are not visible to him at this point and if the City Attorney could tell us about the stipulation... Paul Taddune said that first of all the Commission has a very important provision in the code that says any time you propose a zoning amendment, until Council which has the authority to enact the zoning amendment approves it or acts on it one way or another, then all building permits applications are held in advance for one year. Paul said that the Commissions concern at this point is whether or not any development would be allowed. Paul said that he feels more comfortable with by calling in the play this particular provision and on the other hand if you do want to work out some agreement with the applicant it should be specify with the understanding to be quite clear that the owner would not be able to propose or submit any plans for the development to the Building Dept. and equally as important that he would not sell the property. The concern here is a very real one that this property is presently unzoned, this memo came to Paul Taddunes attention when he sent off a hot memo to the Planning Dept. and he thinks that the proceeding is in response to some of the City Attorneys concerns. Olof Hedstrom said that it seems to him to make a zoning decision tonight, but that does not preclude the owner coming in at some other time he chooses with a proposal that would require a different zoning, which the Commission could consider as a zoning amendment at that time. That seems to Olof a very orderly and clear-cut procedure that does no harm to the applicant. Paul Taddune said that what he suggests that the Commission do is propose a resolution recom- mending a certain zone with the understanding that you can reconsider that report to Council at such time as the applicant comes in with a more specific development plan for the property. Alan Richman of the Planning Department said that he would like to mention that the point that was just made is specifically what the Planning Of ice would recommend. Paul Taddune said that it accomplishes the same result because in one case there is good faith falling from the applicant and in this case there is good faith falling from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Olof Hedstrom said that they recognize that good faith and appreciate it and at the same time the Board wants to proceed in an orderly manner that will not be to the detriment of the applicant. Mark Danielson said that the owner is willing to enter into an agreement that no proposal would be brought forward to the Building Dept. or anyone else until this subject property is zoned. There is a small problem in making a resolution of recommendation to Council and that is that Council may form that as some sort of reliance as to the fact that this par- cel should be zoned a particular way and the meaning misconstrued when what is really being said is that the good faith going back and forth from the City and the applicant, or the owner, justifies not a zoning be placed on it in particular but that an attitude be taken until there is more documentation , say from the housing study, there is more information gained from both sides. Spencer Schiffer respectably submits that what the Commission is doing by taking that alternative is to create legal problems for the City. There is reliance, and Spence thinks that the proper way out of this thing and the proper way to go about handeling it would be to table any action now and then let the applicant come forward with a proposal; Spence said that the proposal now is strickly a reaction, its arbitrary".there is no basis. Spence would like the opportunity to work with the City and come forward with something we all can live with. Alan Richman submits that the R-15 act is quite defensible and quite appropriate surrounded zoning on several sites is R-15, it is designated as mixed residential, it is entirely compatable with the surrounding neighborhood, it is compatable with the opinions voiced at this Public Hearing tonight. Olof Hedstrom polls the Commission - to table or to go with R-15? Jasmine Ty~re asks Paul Taddune if he concurs with Alan Richmans recommendation to be an appropriate approach for this ~s to , to determine it as opportune at this point? Paul Taddune said that he cannot make that determination because it is the Commissions determination, which is getting the recommendation from the Planning Dept. Paul has always taken the position that all decisions should be based on as much information as possible, and if there is other information out there that should be brought to your attention, Taddune thinks that a more reasonable decision on the Boards part would result if you had all the information together. Spencer has requested an opportunity to present additional information Paul said that if the Commission has an opportunity to look at that information then make a decision, you are going to be making it more informed. The question of whether it should be R-15, 1lI1F, SPIA etc, that really a question that should be answered depending on what the needs of the City are, what the adjacent zone districts are and so forth. The Planning Office has a better feel for that than Paul does. Jasmine Tygre said that she feels it should be tabled. Lee Pardee definitely wants to table this and wants to table it with the condition that it be zoned R-15, unless the applicant submits a stipulation satisfactory to the City Attorney Paul Taddune said that he thinks that it should be agreed that there will be no permit applied for for any development on that parcel and secondly that the property will not be sold or in any way encumbered, unless the City approves such action. f ....~ '^ ~,--,..,...-~._',~..~~--'"'~~-'-""",~.",,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves FORM ~D C. F. HOECK EL B. a. II L. CJ. -7- Paul Taddune explains why this is important: he said that when you have an encumberance on a property that means there is a possibility for a closure, if there is a possibility for a closure the owner of the property would be different, and if the owner of the property is different then we don't have a stipulation for the person that succeeds in interest to the applicant. Lee Pardee said secondly he would like a condition that we not receive, Lee does not really want to review a lengthy application until the housing study, which has been done but is being complied, when this is done that is when it should come before us. Welton Anderson is in favor of tableing. Welton said there was some reliance in the annexation process, but most importantly it seems much harder to change zoning than to zone it improperly in the first place. Roger Hunt agrees with Lee Pardee completely. Perry Harvey agrees to table it and he would ask that the Planning Office seems to be rather adiment about a R-15 zone which allows six units on the property. Perry asked the Planning Office in there estimation has the MAA solved their housing problems. Tnnn l)nrpmllF:; said there is a desperate need for MAA housing Al Blomquist said that he agrees with the intent of everything and that the simplest thing is to zone it R-15 and then acknowledge in the Resolution that its expected and that an application be filed for IlI1F or whatever as soon as the plans are ready. Blomquist feels uncomfortable with unzoned land and thinks it is part of the contract annexation that zoning be done. Tohn Doremus said that the paIns have been ready for almost two years. Al Blomquist said that the City has not carried through on this on the rezoning; they advertise and as Al understands the law on the advertising of their notice, you can't consider 1lI1F, the Commission can only considerR-15 or R-20. Sunny Vann said that the Planning Office is not adimently opposed to a higher density project. The request to rezone it was a request of the City Attorney and was reflecting some concerns that he indicated to the Planning Office about the applicants' ability to do anything in the absence of zoning. Sunny said that looking at the surrounding neighborhood, consider- ing some of the concerns of that neighborhood that have been expressed in recent months and given the fact that the Planning Office had no specific application for property there of any nature. The Planning Office suggested R-15, with the understanding that should an applicant come in with a specific proposal that warranted upzoning then it could either sponsored by the Planning and Zoning, or it could be City Council to accomplish it. That would be done in good faith, now that was the rationale behind the Planning Offices' proposal Olof Hedstrom said that the only thing the Commission could consider is R-15. Olof said that if the Commission table this and continue the Public Hearing to another certain date. Al ,Blomquist said that the applicants desire to have IlI1F considered, which is what the Council generally agreed to in the annexation, is not protected unless notice is given that IlI1F may also be considered and it is only under those circumstances can we have a hearing that considers the two alternatives which is R-15 and 1lI1F. Paul Taddune said that he thinks that the motion should be; Granting the owners request to continue the Public Hearing until such time as he can present more information with the absolute understanding that no development will be allowed on that parcel. Ro~er Hunt moves to continue the Public Hearing and table action at the request of the appli- cant, providing that the applicant submits or otherwise notifies the City Attorney to his sat- isfaction that there will be no development,9fficial application, on that property for the interim period, should such occur that the City shall fall back on an R-15 official zoning, in other words it cannot be handeled through the satisfaction of the City Attorney the base zoning temporarily is R-15 realizing that there has been and probably there will be density greater than what R-15 would allow on that property, in other words Roger is putting a fall back of R-15 and if it doesn't progress, folks, at this point. Paul Taddune asked if the owner of the property has any objection? Owner or applicant said no ther is no problem. Roger Hunt entertains a day certain to include in his motion. Lee Pardee suggests that it be two weeks after the re-publishing or the release of the new housing study or Feb. 1st, whichever occurs first. Olof Hedstrom asked if that was a sufficiently certain date for tabeling action. Paul Taddune said that it is not and the Commission has to name the date. Roger Hunt adds to his motion that the meeting be the first regular meeting in February. Welton Anderson seconds All in favor. Motion is carried unanimously. ""*''''_~'__'''_'''''''_'.'>_m'''''~_,,, ...."".,"'..~--,...",._--... -8- Pitkin Reserve Resolution of Approval Perry Harvey steps down on this. Lee Pardee abstains Olof Hedstrom changes the order of items on the agenda. Su lement to Resolution No. 81-6 Red Butte Subdivision Denial Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said that he was out of town when the Original Resolution was passed; subsequent to the passage of the original resolution a law suit was commenced again- st the P&Z and the City Council concerning the disapproval of that application, and reviewing the recore the City Attorney did not feel that the original resolution completely set forth all of the P&Z findings with respect to the P&Z denial. In order to appraise the court of the exact specific reasons for the denial, Paul thought that a supplemental resolution would be in order. Olof Hedstrom read the resolution and entertains a motion to approve the resolution. Roger Hunt so moves. Al Blomquist seconds . All in favor the motion is carried unanimously. Pitkin Reserve Resolution of Approval Ro~er Hunt said that he had a few points to make and he feels that there are certain question the P&Z did not cover, n ow this is a preliminary plat that means that the P&Z should get into site specifics. Roger aked what the status of the Pitkin Green Water Systems well on that property, what legal status does it have and does that mean by virture of this devel- opment the Pitkin Green looses its water system. Bob Hughes said that he can answer all of Rogers concerns. Roger Hunt reads his statement on the issue. Roger Hunt requests that the following state- ment be recorded verbatum in the minutes., concerning the Pitkin Reserve Development. "Anything in this statement taken out of the context of it being , to me, un do I and my opinion un do I would be either a misquote or a misrepresentation. First of all I find this whole process concerning the Pitkin Reserve and Smuggler Mobile Home Park total- ly appalling. I see a subdivision proposal at the preliminary plat that is not yet gone through annexation procedures. Where ther are concerns such thatstanding alone this is not particularly beneficial to the City except that a deal was made in this process. he same is virtually true with respect to the developement outside the GMP. Again the deal was made and the City is coming up with concurrent and enabling legislation. So the City has been reacting to a hostage crisis. My sympathy is with the Smuggler Resident who have been hanging on literally by their fingernails. They have paid exorbident rent hikes, the threat of more rent hikes, even before this board , and even the threat of the loss of their housing sites. The City took the only avenue it had available to save a large inventory of needed employee housing but the deal is a terrible cost to the whole community. The deal allowed an increased density at Smuggler Site without a very significant improvement for the residents there. It had circumvented the GMP, in a way that will make it more diffi- cult for the City to defend it in the future. The thing that surprises me is the quote for open management foundation wasn't here to raise hell, so I guess the developement wasn't in their back yard, a syndrome which I find equally appalling. In all it morally is not legally enters the gray area of contract in spot zoning. I realize the City Attorney will disagree, it will have adverse effects on the City and the County neighbors at Smuggler and the County neighbors at Pitkin Green. I am sure the developer feels he has been put through the ringer by this process as so many a times occurs here outside when he capable of turning a fast buck at the expense of Aspen. The developer in this case , hitting some interference has commanded an astute capability of the use of leverage. The city consequently signed an agreement certainly binding this Commissions hands and from my viewpoint had faulty if any planning input. Some statements well stated by Commission member Joanie Klar isn't the cart before the horse, Welton Anderson particularly, well we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, there is no way out. I happen to agree with the Pitkin Green Dev- elopment looks as good as can be expected under the circumstances, in all I just don't want to be a party to this and therefore I am substaining form voting on the matter. The final paragraph concerns this preliminary plat and so far the major discussion today has been on the conceptual level. P&Z has not made a site inspection which I find unbelievable for this size project. I don't think the majority are aware of the significance of the conture changes Another question is what is the status of the Pitkin Green water system well located out on this site, and what is the status of tis future and my purpose is not really to delay but gosh darn it the P&Z should be doing its' job. Olof Hedstrom said there are a couple of questions 'Roger raised and the rest is an expression. Olof asked if there are any answers to those questions. Bob Hughes said he would like the opportunity to respond briefly principally to the last paragraph; The concern about the Pitkin Green Water system, Lot 7 of the Pitkin Green subdivision is a lot that is owned by the Aspen Mountain Park, the applicant in this matter. That has not been proposed for any kind of thing related to this project, nor is it proposed for annexation, that is part of the Pitkin Green subdivision and the balance of the subdivision will remain in Pitkin Green. It is Bob Hughes understanding that there is a private water system agreement that relates to a trust that was created by Fritz and Bobby Benedict. Next Hughes discusses the right of wayconcerns and the engineering concerns. The applicant has no problem at all whatsoever flagging this concept of the approximity to the right of way for each and every unit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <, C. F. HOECKEL 9. B. Ilt L. ~D. -9- Bob Hughes does not think the P&Z should loose site of the fact that this a 100 foot right of way that because of the necessary layout and use of the radius the return of any railroad , you are still speaking of an apprieciable difference, so Bob Hughes said the the P&Z shoulf be content with the fact there aren't going to be any trains running by. Bob Hughes would like to ask the P&Z to vote on Alans' proposed resolution. Olof Hedstrom would like to reinterate his reasons for voting in favor of this; it still is the best deal and best solution that Aspen will have or will ever will have for that piece 0 f property. Al Bomquist moves the Resolution as amended. Welton Anderson seconds. All in favor except Roger Hunt abstains. The motion is carried. Welton Anderson moves to adjourn Al Blomquist seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.