Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19830419 r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'l C.F.HOECKELB.B.al.CD. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission April 19, 1983 Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, and Roger Hunt present. Commissioner Comments Harvey requested the attorneys office work on the P & Z's conflict of interest and ex parte contacts. Gary Esary told the Board that City Attorney Taddune is working on this. Alice Davis, planning office, told the P & Z that pitkin Reserve has had final approval, and one of the conditions was that 65 per cent of the roofs be pitched. This condition was not specific but was incorporated by reference. Ms. Davis said because of customer preference, the applicant would like to eliminate this from the approval. The planning office feels this is a minor PUD amendment, but is asking the P & z if they have a problem with this. No one did. Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning Colette Penne, planning office, said the present zoning on the Buckhorn is O,office and the request is to rezone the C/L. The use of this lodge is C/L uses; commercial space on the first floor and lodging on the second floor. This lodge is a non-conformity in the 0, office zone and cannot expand or do major improvements. The planning office recommended this be zoned L-3 with the other. The owner was concerned that the L-3 zoning would still leave this lodge non-conforming so he applied for C/L zoning. Ms. Penne said this is across from City Market, with R/MF across to the east. The purpose of the C/L zone is to be a transition from the lodge zone to the commercial zone. Ms. Penne said the planning office does not feel this is a perfect fit for C/L as it sits between N/C and office zones. The remainder of the block is the Bell Mountain lodge, which did take L-3 zoning. This would make a small pocket of C/L zone. C/L zoning would make the Buckhorn conforming; however, the staff recommends L-3, which would allow the owner to upgrade the lodge part and not expand the commercial uses. Ms. Penne said this is a major corner coming into Aspen from the east. In the C/L zone there is a 2:1 FAR, which could wipe out the parking and make a bulky building at that corner. Ms. Penne recommended P & Z recommend denial of C/L and recommend zoning to L-3. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, went over the history of creating the L-3 zoning, which was to help eliminate the non-conformity of the lodges and allow upgrading. Kaufman said L-3 does not help the Buckhorn. The Buckhorn is asking to make the commercial uses conforming in an already commer- cial area. This lodge is next to City Market and at the base of the mountain and is an appropriate area for C/L use. Kaufman said he is asking to allow for uses that were legal when they were there and have continued uninterrupted for 15 years; commercial on the first floor and lodge on the second floor. This exactly fits with the definition of C/L. Kaufman said the only question in this application is the ability to go to a 2:1 FAR. Kaufman pointed out this lodge does not have the right to build; they would have to go through growth management and compete. Kaufman said to deny zoning to make this building conforming based on the assumption they may build, is unfair. The only zoning that will help this building is C/L. Kaufman said the P & Z has to look Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 criteria for rezoning; one is compatibility, and this building is certainly compatible. The impacts can be mitigated in design and GMP application. The air and water quality impact is negligble. Kaufman said the Buckhorn would like the opportunity to continue to operate in a legal way what has been going on for the last 15 years. Harvey opened the public hearing. Dave Zaagman said he felt to allow this lodge to upgrade is for the good of the town. Joe Luciania, owner of the Alpina Haus, supports this request. What the city did for the L-3 lodges was to help, and it does not help this lodge. Luciania said the Buckhorn is not asking for anything other than what the city did for the L-3 lodges. Horst Balke, owner of an L-3 lodge, said the city helped him become a legal use in a residential area, and the Buckhorn lodge should have the same privilege. Anderson said although there are some valid points, but this is asking for more than what the L-3 zoning accomplished by allowing twice the density. Anderson agreed with bringing this building into conformity; the L-3 would bring the lodge portion into conformity. Anderson said he did not see any benefit to the community by allowing this building to get twice the density. Hunt agreed with these comments. Hunt said as soon at this is zoned C/L, the applicant will come in with an application to maximize the building to 2:1 FAR. Hunt said the L-3 designation would allow the lodge space to be improved. Hunt said there may be a domino effect with the property next door. Kaufman asked if the C/L request were linked to a 1:1 FAR, would that alleviate the Board's concern. Hunt said he would defer to the legal staff. Ms. Tygre said this is really an expansion of commercial use, and that bothers her about this application. Ms. Tygre said she does not see a community need for more commercial space. Ms. Fallin agreed that C/L is too much density. Harvey pointed out there is no contigu- ous C/L zoning to this site; this would be putting a pocket of C/L zone in the middle of the block. Kaufman said they would voluntarily accept a 1:1 FAR. Harvey said he still has a problem with creating a pocket of C/L. Ms. Penne pointed out one of the criteria for rezoning is a community need and balance. There are some questions on this criteria. Ms. Fallin asked if the Commission could make this C/L with a 1:1 FAR. Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary said there is a fine line between zoning to use and spot zoning. Esary said if the only concern of the P & Z were the FAR, he would research. However, he has heard comments from the Board running the gamut of the criteria in the Code for rezoning. Harvey closed the public hearing. Harvey said the consensus of the Commission is that C/L is not a proper zone because the potential for a large FAR; potential for the rest of the lot to be rezoned; the loss of parking; the rationale of need of commercial use in that area; and creating an island of C/L zoning. Kaufman brought up waiving the planning office fee because the L-3 zone was totally picked up by the city, and this applicant would like the same consideration. Kaufman said the Buckhorn is trying to get the zoning that worked for everyone else. An L-3 zone for the Buckhorn kept him non-conforming. Harvey said he would only recommend waiving the fee is the Buckhorn accepts L-3, like everyone else. This would set too great a precedent. "'" , / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting April 19, 1983 FORM'D C. f. ~QELKEL B. B. ll: L CO. Little Nell Property - Extension of SPA Planning and Zoning Commission -3- Harvey suggested letting Council handle waiving the fee. Hunt moved to recommend to Council denying the application of the Buckhorn Lodge for rezoning to C/L because it is not a proper zone due to the potential for a large FAR; potential for the rest of the lot to be rezoned; the loss of parking; the rationale of need of commercial use in that area; and the creating an island of C/L zoning; and that the proper zoning for this lot should be L-3; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, planning office, showed the P & Z the property in question, which is zoned C, conservation and is contiguous to property zoned CC/SPA also owned by the applicant. Ms. Penne said this is a request to extend the SPA which is on the lower portion of the property over the portion of the property that is zoned conservation. The conservation zone on this property will remain; the request is to add another layer, which is the SPA. The advantages to the applicant are if they wish to make a proposal, they would have the flexi- bility for site design, setbacks, area and bulk requirements. Ms. Penne told P & Z the advantages to the city are that there are certain uses that can be built within the conservation zone, such as school, hospital, single family house; however, it is unlikely the institutional uses would be built. The house could be built. Ms. penne said an SPA overlay would preclude anything from being built without city review and public hearings. The SPA designation would assure that the development of the area would meet P & Z's approval and would assure the best site plan for the applicant. This does not give any development rights. Ms. Penne put the maps, memo and description into the public record. Harvey asked if the FAR would be based on the entire parcel and built in the CC part. Sunny Vann, planning director, said one would take the area and bulk requirements attributable to the CC, those attributable to conservation and aggregate them. Vann said also with an SPA overlay with the underlying zoning, the P & Z could ignore the underlying zoning and vary the area and bulk requirements in the use provision. The planning office would recommend if a change is use is proposed that is not currently allowed in a conservation~zone, to rezone that property. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told P & Z the Ski Company owns this parcel with a lot of different zones categories, L-l, CC, and conservation. The SPA designation will give the ability to plan something to encompass all the property at one particular time, rather than a piecemeal approach for each zone. The applicant would like to master plan the entire property. The Ski Company would still have to compete in the GMP and go through the SPA process. Kaufman said this area at the base of Little Nell could use cleaning up. It also might be an appropriate place for a hotel. Kaufman said last year the Ski Company spent time and money to come up with a plan for the Little Nell area, and there was opposition from adjacent property owners. At that time, the applicant was told because they did not have an SPA overlay or the right to develop the property, they could not Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 compete in the GMP because they would be subject to litigation because they did not have the legal right to compete. Kaufman met with the staff and felt the best approach would be to get a SPA designation so that they have the right to compete in GMP. If this application was successful in GMP, the SPA review process would then take effect. Kaufman pointed out now the applicant is being told the SPA request is premature because they don't have a site plan. The Ski Company is willing to come up with a viable plan for that area; they do not know what this will be at that time. The applicant is asking for the SPA extension so they have the ability to plan one piece of property. They are not asking that the conservation zone be changed. Kaufman stated the applicant wants an opportunity to legally compete in the GMP. Harvey opened the public hearing. Harvey entered the letters received on this application into the record. J. D. Muller entered something into the record. Muller disagrees with the planning office and what they said with respect to the effects of the SPA. Muller said there are problems with the SPA itself and the way it is written in the code. Muller said there is a possibility this could wind up giving a rezoning to this area, eliminating requirements of the conservation district, and giving the area an SPA desig- nation, which has no requirements at all. Muller said he felt the P & Z may be giving away all controls on this property in return for a review opportunity. Muller said an SPA would be giving the applicant the flexibility to vary all require- ments. Muller said the potential for giving up control of this parcel is tremendous. Muller said conservation is appropriate zoning. Austine Stitt read a letter to the Board from Aspen Square requesting denial of the SPA for Little Nell in that an SPA overlay has the same effect as a zoning change; the city has determined conservation was the best usage for this area; zoning change should not be allowed on housekeeping grounds. Mark Danielsen entered letters from Aspen Alps owners into the record. Andy Hecht, representing the Aspen Alps condominium association, Copper Kettle and George Mitchell, also entered letters into the record. Hecht said the city has a master plan, and from that plan came zoning, and this property was zoned conservation. Rezoning is a drastic change. Hecht said the Code is very specific on what the city requires in a rezoning, and this applicant proposes to avoid this process at this time. Hecht said the adjacent property owners would like a fair treatment for a rezoning. Sirous Saghetoleslami, owner of the Copper Kettle, said when he bought the property, he asked the planning office what could be built on the property in question, and they said nothing because it is zoned conservation. Saghetoleslami said the rules keep changing. Charles Hopton, representing North of Nell building, said he would not object to cleaning up the base of Little Nell and they don't need any zoning change to do that. This property at Little Nell is the toe of a giant mountain, and all the access for skiing comes down. Hopton said he felt this request was an attempt to circumvent the normal rezoning process. Carol Riley, managing the Tipple Inn, stated they did not receive official notice of this meeting. The owners of the condominiums object to the rezoning of Little Nell's because of inadequate parking, increased traffic, obstruction of the view from existing property, and obstruction of pedestrian access from Dean street to Little Nell's. "'" , , /I"',.,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 c.r,HOECKEla.a.&l.CQ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission -5- April 19, 1983 Michael McCarthy, representing the Aspen square, said once the land has an SPA designation, it can be developed without the limits of the conservation zone. McCarthy said there are no facts before the P & Z which would support an SPA designation. McCarthy said this is a de facto zoning requests with zero record. The P & Z should be looking at the rezoning criteria set forth in the Code. McCarthy requested the Board reject or table this until they have further information. Kaufman presented the land use plan which shows recreation and accommodations for the area zoned conservation. Kaufman said the applicant does not intend to take the development all the way up the hill. The Ski Company does not have a site picked. The applicant is asking for the opportunity to proceed with a plan; they are not asking for guarantees or any development rights. Harvey closed the public hearing. Harvey said there are more than 30 letters from condominium owners of Aspen Alps, Aspen square and individual owners surrounding. All the letters oppose the designation of SPA based upon need for open space and views, the fact it is a forerunner of rezoning and a zoning change. Harvey said this will be read into the record at the end of this discussion. Anderson said there is a distinction between SPA overlay and zoning; zoning is what is allowed on a property by right. SPA is a complex procedures with a lot of public hearings. Esary disagreed that an SPA is a rezoning. Esary asked if the applicant asked for a use in the conservation zone that was inconsistent with that zone, would they file a rezoning application. Kaufman said he did not believe he was required to do that, but if P & Z made that a condition, he would do it. Esary stated the attorney's position is that the applicant must have some development right with respect to zoning to apply for GMP, and they feel a development right comes before a GMP application. Esary stated an SPA designation is not de facto rezoning, and the SPA process will be the rezoning process. Esary said the letters should be examined by all members of the P & Z prior to any decision. Ms. Tygre moved to table this application until the members have had time to examine the letter; seconded by Anderson. Kaufman said he felt the P & Z had enough information in front of them to make a determination. Ms. Tygre said she wanted to examine the letters because they appear to bring up some points she would like to consider. Hunt moved to reconsider the previous motion; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Harvey reopened the public hearing. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting pending Commissioner's review of these letters. seconded by Hunt. Esary requested a 5 minutes recess. a 10 minute review of the letters. into the record. Garfield & Hecht; The Commissioners took Esary read the letters Condominium Rental REgular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 Management Inc.; J. D. Muller, R. Vernon Kolpitts; Mrs. Henry T. Chandler; J. W. Kelso; Robert Fehr; Stanley Fimberg; Wilshire Company; Bear Properties; Mr & Mrs. John Taylor; Peter Van Domelen attorney for Dudley J. Hughes; Philip Rothblum; Mrs. Edward McMillan; Austine Stitt, Aspen Square; W. D. Eberle, western union; Terry J. Turkay; Marvin Burton; Louis Marcus; Jaime Paris; Joan Favor by telephone to Harvey; William Maughan; Mrs. Richard Wohlgemuth; Edward O'Herron; Betty Weiss telegram; Scott Kleiman; Arthur Rock; Halglenn Corp. Ernest Halpryn; Lothar M. Warady; Mark Bradley telegram; Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp; Joseph H. Peck with exhibits of the Aspen Skiing Company letter, map, and a copy of the public notice. Hunt withdrew his second to the motion to table. Hunt said he would like to know if the notice to the Tipple was deficient. Esary said there was a representative at the Tipple who spoke. The Board, Esary, and Muller discussed the appropriateness of the notice to the Tipple. There may have been an incorrect address in the Assessor's file. Kaufman said they paid a title company to research the records and come up with the property owners. Esary stated someone from the Tipple appeared and objected to the property but did not ask for a continuance. Hunt withdrew his second again. Ms. Tygre moved to table in order to go over the letters; seconded by Ms. Fallin. Tygre, aye; Fallin, aye; Anderson, nay; White, aye; Hunt, nay; Harvey, nay. Motion NOT carried. Harvey reopened the public hearing. Harvey closed the public hearing. Peter Forsch, Skiing Company, stated this is an attempt to define the development process so they can proceed with a plan for this property. The Skiing Company does not know what they intend to do with this property at this time. There was a development plan last summer, which was withdrawn. The applicant would like to look at the property to see what can be done. Hunt said whatever the existing areas are for CC, conservation and lodge that they stay intact. There may be some adjustments but Hunt does not want the property rezoned. Anderson agreed the "white swath" is in everyone's best interest to be preserved; this should not be eliminated. Ms. Tygre said this is a key piece of property for Aspen; there is a lot of comment and Ms. Tygre does not want to be pushed into making a decision. White said his hesitation is that giving this an SPA designation, the P & Z may give up some control. Harvey stated the SPA allows flexibility in density, units, setbacks; it allows what comes out of the review process. Forsch said it is the intention of the planning office to use exactly the same criteria for a rezoning application in the SPA process. Ms. Fallin said she would like the property to remain C, conservation, and is not in favor of the SPA because coming in for the GMP gets this one more step in the doorway. Ms. Fallin said she would like to see nothing built on that piece of property based on what has been presented. Harvey said this has been clouded by the proposal that came in from the Ski Company last summer. Harvey said the P & Z is concerned they may see another proposal like that again. Harvey said the rezoning criteria, compatability, impact on traffic roads parking, air and water, community need, general plan compatibility, and promotion of the general welfare of the residents and visitors, are aequate criteria for the P & Z "'" , ' -"- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting April 19, 1983 FORM," C. F. ~QEC~EL B. B. II: L. CD. Eames Addition Rezoning Lots 7 - 12 Block @ Planning and Zoning Commission -7- not to be afraid to give the applicant the opportunity to come in with a plan. Harvey said the approval of this SPA overlay is only doing that. Harvey said from all comments, the applicant should get a feeling of the fears and reactions. Harvey said he is not afraid of the Board's ability to con- sider any further plans and act in the best interests of the community. Harvey said he is in favor of this action. Hunt moved to recommend to Council the expansion of the SPA overlay to encompass the parcels zoned C, CC and L-l owned by the Aspen Skiing Company and the Little Nellbase area as shown on the submitted map, conditioned on (1) existing zones are maintained with the respect to each area; (2) any change in zone area will consitute rezoning subject to those proce- dures; (3) if the two previous conditions are not maintained, the Commission recommends denial of the application. Hunt changed condition (2) to read any variance in the allowed use in the underlying zone will be reviewed under the SPA and rezoning criteria, and (3) if Council doesn't approve the first two conditions, the Commission recommends denial of the application; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, planning office, told P & Z these lots are on Aspen street down from lift lA across from the Skier's Chalet. They are presently zoned R-15-L/pUD; this is a transition zone to relieve the density from the L-2 zone to the residen- tial zone. The applicant contends this particular parcel is the only one fronting on Aspen street which is not zoned L-2, and it should be zoned L-2. Ms. Penne pointed out this six lot parcel is the only one owned by the Skiing Company in this area except for the base at lift lA. There is no development proposal; it is a small parcel for L-2 zone. Ms. Penne pointed out rezoning to L-2 would increase the value of the lot, and the planning staff does not feel this is an appropriate action. The planning staff does not support upzoning in the absence of any develop- ment proposal and no idea of what will be proposed. Ms. Penne told P & Z this is the Ski Company's employee park- ing area at the base of the mountain, and the planning office does not support removal of parking at the base of the mountain. Ms. Penne said the applicant has just gotten approval from the county for a winter and summer use at Ruthie's restaurant and this area will be needed for parking in the summer. Ms. Penne said the short term accommodations report indicated the L-3 zoning action and the lodge quoat in the GMP is adequate to meet lodging needs based on skier use and lifts. Ms. Penne said part of a rezoning action is that there has been some change in the area which merits rezoning. There has not been a change in this neighborhood. The planning office recommends denial of this rezoning request for the reasons outlined in the memorandum of April 19, 1983. Gideon Kaufman, representing the Skiing Company, said they are not asking to create something different but for something that is logical and was intended in the first place. Kaufman Regular Meeting """_.-"'~,-- - .... Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 1983 went over the surrounding zones on a map. The R-15 PUD makes this zone different from the surrounding zones and creates an enclave which conflicts with the land use plan. Kaufman stated they are not asking for substantial rezoning. Kaufman said he felt this R-15PUD/L zoning is a mistake. Kaufman said from the land use plan, the maps, the short term accommodation report and logic indicate this parcel should be L-2. Harvey opened the public hearing. Vann said the issue here is whether this parcel should be upzoned in the absence of a specific development proposal. Vann agreed that the zoning line may not be appropriate, and the planning office is not saying this parcel should not be rezoned. Consideration for rezoning should be made with a specific proposal. Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company, said the applicant cannot think of a plan without the appropriate zoning. Anderson asked about the parking issue for Ruthie's restaurant. Kaufman said there were no conditions in the approval for the restaurant for this property to be a parking lot. Forsch said the applicant did not represent in the restaurant approval that this would be parking. White said the county Commission minutes indicate there is a specific parking plan with the city; White said he would like to see that plan. Kaufman said this property is not zoned for parking. This parcel was given a zone designation with the ability to develop. Ms. Penne told the P & Z there will be a review of Ruthie's after one year of operation. The applicant said if there is a need for the parking lot to remain, they will do what they can to make that happen. Harvey asked if the P & Z could condition any rezoning upon the applicant providing an adequate alternate site for parking. Forsch said he was not sure there is an alternate site. Harvey said the county minutes indicate this parking issue will be resolved. Harvey said the impact of the parking is on the city, and the P & Z may require an alternate plan for parking in this approval. Hunt said he would want to see the plan before giving any approval. Ms. Penne said the R-15 PUD/L is a transition zone, and if the P & Z wants to chip away at it, there should be a good reason. The purpose of this zone is an R-15 density that can be short termed. Esary said the applicant has the burden to show that the zoning is improper. Anderson stated he is ambivalent about an L-2 designation. Hunt said he is not in favor without seeing a proposal. The Skiing Company has a major burden in this area in automobile use, and if they eliminate the parking lot, it will put that burden on the city. Hunt said he sees no benefit in increas- ing the zoning until there is a proposal before P & Z. Hunt stated he is not willing to say L-2 is appropriate for this proposal. Ms. Fallin agreed this is not appropriate for L-2 at this time. White said the parking problem should be solved first. Harvey said he felt there were representations made to the county regarding Ruthie's and the use of this for parking. That issue has to be resolved before this parcel should be rezoned L-2. Harvey said it makes sense that this property should be zoned L-2. Harvey said there has to clarification on the parking issue and the impact of Ruthie's. Harvey would also like to see the impact of a lodge on this parcel. "'" I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"! '0 C. F. HOECKEL B. 8. I> l. ~J. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission -9- April 19, 1983 Hunt moved to table this application upon request of the applicant to a date uncertain with the provision that there be renotice of the public hearing; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to table consideration of Rubey Park to Tuesday, April 26, 1983; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Fallin All in favor, motion carried. "~~h~i~