Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740129 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.8c l-. CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 29, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Spence Schiffer and Geri Vagneur. County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna 5:10 p.m. with Chuck Also present City/ Baer and John Stanford. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing. Rezoning of Ute Avenue Area Member Chuck Vidal stated that due to conflict of interest, he would not be a participating member of the Board for this public hearing. Gillis stated that any member of the public who wished to speak at the hearing must sign up to speak, and each person would be limited to a few minutes. Stated that if any attorneys were present, would they speak in terms that the Commission would understand and then submit any objections in writing to the City Attorney. Gillis further stated that the Commission would just hear comments at this hearing and there would be no debate. Further stated that the Commission would hold a study session luncheon on Tuesday, February 5th at 12:00 noon in the City Council Chambers. Stated there would be a special meeting on February 12th in which the Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. City/County Planner Herb Bartel gave a quick review of the activity of the Planning Office as it relates to the City. Then went on to the specific proposal on Ute Avenue, the plan and the zoning that the Planning Office is recommending for the area. Bartel stated that the first thing he wanted to do, since there were so many new Commission members, was to give a brief history of the program. Stated that the program was started a year and a half ago. Bartel stated that the first thing that was done, star- ting about two years ago, was a really intensive tran- sportation planning program. Submitted a list of some of the reports. Stated that the Planning Office star- ted in 1971 to prepare specific transportation plans and the first report was the Central Area Bus System. Stated that with the Regional Transportation Plan, the Planning Office objective has been to have both City and County acquire those key land elements that are needed to implement a transit system and the key land elements for parking. Bartel pointed out that the County Commissioners had gone ahead with the application for the land at the airport, which could be the transportation center. The City has gone ahead with the purchase of the Rio Grande property and is now looking at some of the title pro- blems with the Midland Right-of-Way. Bartel stated that the point to be made with the first half dozen or so reports is that transportation and land use have to balance and the Regional Transporta-- tion plan really does not depend on substantial in- creases in population in Aspen for the transit system to be feasible. Bartel further stated that some of the other signifi- I"'" ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HfJECKELB.B.& L. CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 cant things that have happened include the pitkin Coun- ty Air Quality Report. Stated that the City and Coun- ty have requested of the State Air Pollution Control Commission that Aspen and its surrounding area be in- cluded in the air quality criteria. Bartel stated that several other reports done by the State, which he submitted for review, included the Colorado University study on Recreation Resource Plan- ning, the State study on Options for the Future and the Analysis for Rural Development. Stated that these reports all have significant implications for Pitkin County because they address the growth problem and the recreation economy and the changes that are taking place in Colorado. Bartel stated that the last list which he would sub- mit for the view graph is a list of the studies which are underway in the County. Stated there were $180,000 of studies in the County, the most significant ones would be the work that the State Game and Fish Depart- ment is doing (a plan for the preservation of wild- life), and the Colorado State University slide presen- tation. Bartel pointed out that the zoning code in the County is being rewritten. Stated that an economic study is being done of growth alternatives in the County by Denver Research Institute and further, proceeding with technical studies application for the Enginnering segment of implementing the transit system. Stated that one of the studies not shown on the list was the highway design plan, which is an additional $64,000, $34,000 of which is State Highway Department money and $30,000 local money. Stated that as far as the plan- ning aspect of the transportation problem is concerned, feel it is well underway and the implementation is in- credibly difficult and expensive. Stated the City must have an opportunity to take on these new responsibili- ties and the land use pattern has to balance with the overall transportation system. Bartel then gave a brief review of what the County is doing as far as updating the Master Plan. Stated that in March of '73, the County contracted with Trafton Bean to update the Master Plan in the area generally extending from the airport to Aspen and then above Aspen to Independence Pass. Stated that the land use recommendations and density recommendations represent some significant changes from those contained in the 1966 Plan: (1) Density range recommended by the Plan is one unit for ten acres on the low side and l~ units per acre on the high side; (2) Another significant in- put to the plan is to consider the highway, both on the east and west ends of town as a scenic corridor, designating the highway approaches for mandatory PUD and designating the criteria for the location of buil- dings to maintain the open character of the highway approaches. Further stated it really is not any sub- stantial change in the plan as far as the density rec- ommendation in the Buttermilk area. Bartel stated that one of the concerns of the Planning Office is that the community has taken some significant -2- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.8.81l,CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 steps that are not shown on the 1966 Master Plan. Eight million dollars for maintaining the open space at the entrance to Aspen, three million dollars spent on land acquisition within the townsite itself to make the first steps towards solving the transportation problem and maintain the open character within the townsite. Stated that BLM land lease and purchases to assure that the public lands remain open and they are subject to use pressures because an application can be made for a special use permit on BLM lands for private ac- quisition or development. Bartel stated that the adoption of a Greenway Plan, which is outlined schematically, which was not in- cluded in the '66 Plan, and the implementation of that at this point, has not really begun. Stated that what they wanted to present to the Commission is that sig- nificant changes have occurred that were not reflected in the 1966 Plan, and one of the elements for the change in zoning is change in condition. Further stated that this is expressed in the highest degree by the action that the City of Aspen and the County have taken in the last three years. Bartel stated that the Planning Office had prepared a Planning Priorities Map in order to provide a format of going from the general plan, such as the '66 plan or the Ordinance #19 map, to specific areas that need detailed study and recommendations on the part of the Planning Office. Stated that what the Planning Office has done is to take a look at what was going on. Felt that in the Central Area, with the view preser- vation program, the Historic Preservation Program and the design plan, it may take up to 24 months for a review and action and there is $40,000 in the budget for 1974 to prepare an urban design plan for the cen- tral area of Aspen. Further feel that significant steps are being taken in the downtown area. Bartel stated that the Planning Office then identi- fied the problem areas from Ordinance #19 which are the mixed-residential areas, and identified the land that the City owns as the highest priority areas be- cause they want the actions on the part of the City to set the example for the character, and to generally establish the feeling of smallness in Aspen and main- tain its resort character. Stated that they have gone from two general plans within the City to a map that lists what the planning priorities, and we are now down to the specifics, which means they will be look- ing at site plans, and are currently doing a site plan for the Rio Grande Property. Stated that the Plan- ning Office has identified some of the significant opportunities tying the river, the public property, the downtown area, and the Mountain together with pedestrian corridor, a full system of pedestrian trail, improvements to the circulation system to re- lieve the problems at the Mill and Main intersection, saving a future option for the possibility of rail ac- cess to the property on Riverside Park. Hope some land exchanges so that the present private property will be more usable and that the City would have a better opportunity to take advantage of the resource that the Roaring Fork River offers. -3- -- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM;eo C. f. H~ECKEL B. 9. II l. CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 Bartel stated that the Planning Office had given its input to the Parks and Recreation Department, which is working on a site plan for the golf course property. Stated that they want to establish at the entrance to Aspen an open approach and want to landscape the area. Bartel stated that the Thomas property should remain a meadow. Feel that the area along Maroon should be des- ignated as a conservation park. Stated that they had made an application for the trail, which, subject to the approval of Federal funds, would be extended across the golf course property, extending across the Rio Grande and make a cross town link all the way to the bridge. Stated that the trail element has been one of the significant planning programs. Bartel stated that two other areas in which the Plan- ning Office has done specific work include the view plane preservation and the historic preservation pro- gram. Stated that the HPC has outlined the area that they want considered as a preservation district. Bartel gave a brief outline of events that have oc- curred since 1956 for the Commission to illustrate some of the specific actions which have taken place: (1) Zoning in the City in 1956, which has not been changed; (2) Although the ute Avenue area was zoned AR-l, the first development in that area was the single family subdivision, which was platted in 1961. The lot size in that area varied from 7-8 thousand square feet per lot to 16,000 square feet; (3) In February of 1966 the Master Plan was submitted. The plan shows the Ute Avenue area for Accommodations-Recreation Development. Feel that significant changes have occurred since then, and now justification for changing zoning; (4) In 1969 the City acted to reduce the density to be consistent with the Master Plan. Demonstrated how inadequate the regulations were at that time since there is no sub- stantial affect today on the development that has oc- curred; (5) In 1973, DRC made the application for the Gant. Stated that for the first time, the residents in the area realized what the Master Plan said and how the area was zoned; (6) In March of 1973, the P & Z recommended to the City Council that there be a major review of densities in the Master Plan. The result of that was an intensive work program to develope the Ordinance #19 Map. Stated that the map did not con- tain density recommendations. Council adopted Ordi- nance #19. The ute City Protective Association was formed and rezoning was proposed by initiative. That petition was insufficient so the matter was not brought to the public for a vote; (7) From April to December of 1973, the Planning Office has had applications for 220 some units in the area which represents about 685 bedrooms, and that does not include all the devel- opable land; (8) In December, the commission appointed a subcommitte to study the Mixed-Residential areas. The Committee's function was to gather information, to inventory land use, to look at some of the general ow- nership patterns. The Committee then turned that in- formation over to the Planning Office and the Planning Office then made its recommendations to the Commission and requested that a public hearing be set. -4- ,.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM;o C. F. H3ECKH B. B.ll~. '-'0. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 Bartel stated that obviously, the planning Office could not make that recommendation in a five day period with- out having an extensive planning program in process for several years. Stated that the point that needs to be made is that the hard questions facing the Planning commission are going from general plans to specific plans. Feel there is justification for looking at the Ute Avenue area separately. It is different from the rest of the Mixed-Residential area and also feel that of the remaining priorities on the planning priorities map that it now has the highest priority. Assistant Planner John Stanford explained how the plan evolved. Stated that one of the main reasons they had studied the Ute Avenue area first was the impact of the possible development and the development pressures in the area. Stated that there are 227 units proposed there with an estimate of around 685 bedrooms. Also, the remaining developable land, and using the figure of 12.6 units per acre, you would come up with 123 units with 369 bedrooms. Stated that if this was added up with the existing proposed and the remaining developable land, you would have a total of 452 units with a total of 1,360 bedrooms, using three bedrooms per unit. Stanford stated that the design elements of the plan show three basic concepts: (1) A housing concept where they would like to have a range of housing types from single family to apartments, with the apartments being subject to review; (2) wanted to institute a density concept whereby the density would decrease as you move away from the core. Would also help estab- lish the boundary between the City and the country; (3) The special review element, which would be pro- vided to insure that they maintain the character of openness and greater flexibility in the design by fitting the design into the physical setting. Would also help the City look at the 8040 Greenline and a provision for agreements concerning maintenance of the developments and common open spaces. Stanford stated that it was from this plan that they came up with the recommended zoning of R-6 and R-15 for the areas shown on the map. The objectives of the plan were: (1) To support the Historic Preser- vation efforts; (2) To establish the town to country boundary; (3) To preserve the existing natural areas in the area; (4) Wanted to allow low density devel- opment to compete effectively with high density de- velopment, which is the present trend in the City; (5) Wanted to retain the scale of Aspen; (6) Wanted to retain some of the small-town atmosphere of Aspen which has an unidentifiable economic asset. Stanford stated that the proposed zoning requires that a PUD requirement go in the R-15 and R-6 areas and would designate the area under consideration as 6,000 square feet for single family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for two family dwellings, with 15,000 square feet for single family dwellings or two family dwelllings in the R-15. Stanford stated that the result of this proposed -5- -- --, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM". C.F.K'JECKELB.a.lll.CQ. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 zoning would be a total of 185 units with 555 bedrooms. Stated that based on the existing trends, you would have 452 units with 1,306 bedrooms. Stated that that unit figure is based on the ratio of 12.6 units per acre in the areas which are developable. Gillis recommended to the Commission that the members hold all questions for the study session unless there is something specific to be cleared up. Public Participation in Public Hearing Barbara Lewis stated that she was addressing her first comments to the construction of the Clarendon project. Stated that she had read the proposal of the developer. Felt the heart of the proposal was the claim that the Clarendon would be an asset to the town of Aspen. Stated that firstly, since the developer makes the con- tention that tourists generate 6 times the fiscal bene- fits per capita that residents do and are therefore more desirable to the City. Secondly, they project that the average occupancy over a year's period would be 38.8% or 49 people and exercise a hardly noticeable impact on the community. Stated that after studying this proposal and the supporting report of Dr. Crouch, stated she would like to challenge this claim. Barbara Lewis Further stated that Dr. Crouch uses the somewhat ques- tionable base figure of $54.60 per day in taxable ex- penditure generated by the average Aspen tourist. Stated that after computing the tax and hardship im- pact of these 49 people upon the City government, based on last year's City budget, Crouch predicts that these 49 people would generate in sales and property tax a fiscal benefit of $33,205/year. Lewis contends that no single year's City budget can adequately reflect the range and extent of the community's cost in ex- panding the intra - structure services to meet an expanded population. Stated that she felt the worst ommission of the re- port is the failure to consider the tax and manage- ment hardship upon the County government by the City's expansion. Stated that Pitkin County is currently preparing to improve the existing airport and high- way and build a new hospital. Stated that the figure of 38.8% occupancy is irrelevent to tax and manage- ment hardships upon City of County government since services must be expanded or geared to maximum oc- cupancies. Stated that the Clarendon's projection that the pro- bable level of year-round occupancy will be 38.8% is small comfort in a community that is already so over- built that it is filled to capacity for only four weeks of the ski season in the course of an entire year. Stated that while over half of Aspen's work force of 4,200 people, most of whom are employed in tourism related businesses, are forced to comute be- tween their jobs in Aspen and trailer courts and low- cost housing down the valley. Stated that the dis- placement of this group further contributes to the overloading of Highway 82 and air pollution. Stated that she felt that the only way to improve upon a vacant lot is to plant trees on it, but if we must -6- {' '"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.f.HnECKELB.B.&L..CD. Special Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 build, would rather see the land be used for the con- struction of one or two family dwellings or low-cost employee housing that would be less obtrusive, would alleviate our serious resident housing shortage. ALBIE KERN Kern stated that he is the attorney for nestination Resort Corporation, the developer of the Gant Condo- miniums. Stated that he was speaking only insofar as the proposed rezoning would affect the Gant project. Kern pointed out that several of the members on the Commission were not on the Commission at the time the P & Z and the City Council approved the subdivision and the PUD of the Gant project. Pointed out that final approval and rezoning of this area occurred only last April. Kern stated that rezoning and approval of a PUD pro- ject is a very lengthy, involved and detailed program, created and controlled by the City's PUD ordinance Stated that from the time of submission of the ap- plication and outline development plan to the City's final approval of the subdivision and PUD plans and the rezoning of the property took approximately six months. As a result, DRC included in its PUD project housing for employees and provisions for a view plane, requirements which are still not provided or required for in the City zoning laws. Kern added that there was no legal requirement for DRC to have its land rezoned to a PUD, but throught the suggestion of the City Planner, they followed this procedure. Stated that inherent in a PUD plan is that the phasing of the project be approved by the City. Stated that this, too, was done, establishing three inter-related phases. In reliance on this approval, to this date, DRC has invested over $300,000 in plan- ning and architectural and related costs towards the completion of the project, plus approximately 2 mil- lion dollars in present construction costs and costs relating to all three phases. Kern stated that additionally, by agreement with the City, DRC has conveyed property to the City for pub- lic trails and open space, including the surfacing and resurfacing of City streets. By City ordinance, the PUD became binding upon the land so that whether the land is down-zoned or up-zoned the project must be built according to the approved PUD plans. Kern stated that, finally, the PUD project is in af- fect one project built in three phases, each phase re- lating to the other. DRC has entered into contracts for the sale of existing units, which require DRC to complete the project in accordance with the PUD zoned plan. This includes construction of the recreational and general common facility as well as the remaining condominium units. In conclusion, Kern stated that he believed that any action taken by this Commission or the City Council to change the present zoning would be morally ir- responsible and legally disastrous if such rezoning -7- {' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F, IjJECKEL B. 8. a L.. ~O. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 does not recognize the approved DRC PUD plan and the rezoning adopted in April of 1973. Any new zoning by the City of this Commission should accept from it the area rezoned PUD. Kern submitted copies of the statement for the Com- mission members. BOB CUTTING Cutting stated that he had been a resident of Aspen and the County for approximately 17 years. Cutting stated he was concerned with the impact of Aspen and the County as they inter-relate. Stated that he was present because growth in either Aspen or the County affects the availability of land for growth in the other factor. Stated that some will suffer so that others may prosper. cutting stated that as a result of this situation, both the City and County P & Z's feel a pressure to react and react quickly to prevent a runaway situation. cutting stated that he had spoken to several owners of rural land who have assured him that it is going to be impossible for them, under the current IRS, to pass their land on to their heirs. Stated that as a result, we find that many agricultural people in the County are feeling pushed to act now and do some- thing with their land before this downzoning and fut- ure downzoning leaves them with nothing. Cutting stated that any growth or development in the County adds to the congestion in Aspen and put more pressure on City services and add to the complexity of the transportation system. Cutting stated that he felt there was a great need for a coordinated plan between the City and the County which will spread the burden of downzoning equitably. Stated that if it is possible, there should be no reason why one neighbor should suffer for his neigh- bor's prosperity. Felt the concept of TDR does a lot to achieve the end of equitable distribution of the inevitable burden that we must accept to downzone this valley. Stated it helps the agricultural man in the following way: if the man is assigned a certain num- ber of development rights to his ranch which he does not want to develope, he can then sell those rights, which would mean that that land could never be de- veloped. Stated this would allow placement of popu- lation centers where they are needed. Cutting stated that he felt if they could arrive at a number, identified as the ideal population for this valley, divide up the available property and assign the develope rights. NORMA DOLLE Ms. Ddle stated that she was familiar with the pro- blems this area is facing after having lived in La Jolla, California, Scottsdale, Arizona and Honolulu. Ms. Dohl stated that she hoped the people of Aspen would support this downzoning so that the area would not be ruined. Stated that in the area where she -8- {' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'C- C. F. KOEC~EL B. a. 1\ l. co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 29, 1974 lives, the Calderwood area, the congestion has been unbearable. CHUCK VIDAL Vidal stated that he represented Real Estate Affili- ates, developer of the Clarendon project. Vidal request that Bartel elaborate on how specifically each one of the other plans which he referred to en- tered into the decision of the proposed zoning and elaborate more on exactly how the proposed density that is before the Commission was arrived at. Vidal stated that he agreed that the existing zoning that is in that area, at least, proof exists that there is too much density, but would like to know the justification for the number that the zoning appli- cation is camped upon. Vidal further questioned why, with Ordinance #19 being in existence, that the same consideration was not done on a broader scale. HERB BARTEL Bartel stated that one of the main reasons that they were taking this on an area-by-area approach is that the Planning Office can do a better job on a neigh- borhood-by-neighborhood basis for making density and land use recommendations than by using the approach that was done with the 1966 Master Plan and the Or- dinance #19 Map. Bartel stated that the problem is that we know, gen- erally, that transportation and land use are out of balance and that we're concerned about air quality and protection of resources. Bartel stated that the second consideration is on population density. Concern with traffic congestion in the area. Stated that one of the unique things of the area is that it does not have the standard City route system so that you can operate a public trans- portation system to serve it. It is a lineal develop- ment pattern that has a dead-end in the countryside. The planning that the County is doing does not pro- pose a substantial extension of Ute Avenue. The exis- ting development trends generate enough traffic to result in a great increase in traffic congestion in the neighborhood, complicated by the fact that it is not a circulation system that you can run a transit system through. Bartel stated they were concerned with avoiding geo- logic hazards in the area and the present zoning is of such a density that the uses allowed, in most cases, cannot assure protection from geologic hazards. Bar- tel stated that the specific example was the Blue Sky Condominium project. The first application was made for 24 units. It is located generally in the end of the study area. There was an avalanche in the area. The second application submitted was for 8 units. Bartel stated that a further concern was providing protection for the public facilities in the area, par- ticularly Ute Childrens' Park, Ute Cemetery and Glory Hold Park. Do not want over-utilization of parks. -9- .. ---_....,........-.-"..~.._~,.,--, -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOECK ol a. B. Ii ~, ca. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 Bartel further stated that the Planning Office feels that parks should not be used for street widening pur- poses even at intersections. Bartel stated that the concern for air pollution is only addressed through the limitation of population density. Expressed concern for rate of growth. Think it should be substantially less than that which has occurred and the growth that does occur should be con- sistent with City policies. Bartel stated that the final consideration is that the Planning Office wants the population limitation to take into consideration the activities in the County. Stated that the P & Z in the County is near adoption of a new Master Plan for the east area which has a density range of one unit per ten acres to l~ unit per acre. Stated that the recommendation in this immediate area is l~ units per acre. DEAN BILLINGS Billings stated that he had been asked to speak for the owners of the Aspen Alps. Stated that they were in favor of the proposed downzoning. Billings expressed concern with the transportation sys- tem in the area. Stated that the ute City Protec- tion Association had reviewed the Master Plan Map and found that in a small area, if the developer were permitted to put in 153 units, if you applied that factor to the entire area, there could possibly be 7,000 units in the area. Billings expressed concern in the area. Stated that hardly get to his house. road was very much needed with the traffic situation at this point, he could Felt that the old wagon for present circulation. Billings stated that widening the street would not solve the problem. PAT MADDALONE Ms. Maddalone stated that if you are going to con- sider the affects of an area, it must be an area that you are considering for rezoning. Felt that if you really want to go the neighborhood-caucaus approach, only think it is fair if they know that they will be rezoning. Ms. Maddalone further pointed out that the proposed Benedict-Larkin project would be donating substantial- ly more than 11%. Further pointed out that a great deal of the land in Ute Childrens' Park and around the cemetery were do- nated to the City by Mr. Benedict and some of it joint- ly by his partner, Mr. Larkin. Hoped to develope the remaining land in a very low-profile way, leaving large amounts of green space and low density and low height. MARILYN BEER Ms. Beer stated that she was representing the Aspen- Pitkin County League of Women Voters. Stated that they had drafted a statement for the County down- zoning proposal. -10- {' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F,HOECKHB.B.& l.CO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1974 Pointed out that the previous evening, the League had sponsored a workshop at the high school on land use planning. Commended the public officials for al- lowing the public these chances to voice their opin- ions. Ms. Baer pointed out that at the time of the DRC pro- ject, the League had made a public statement regard- ing proposed downzoning. Emphasis in that statement was directed toward the study resulting in: (1) Sup- port of the de-emphasis of cars in Aspen; (2) Support of regulations dealing with air quality standards; (3) Concern of environmental hazards to the land; and (4) Preservation of aesthetic qualities of the valley. Ms. Baer pointed out that in that statement, also, were recommendations addressing the updating and reviewing of Aspen's outdated zoning restrictions. Urged again these same actions - a serious look at what today's existing zoning will bring to Aspen and its overall results and what improvements and protective measures could be gained by a change in these regulations. MICHAEL KINSLEY Kinsley stated that he was representing the Environ- mental Task Force. Kinsley stated that the ETF supported the downzoning. Kinsley pointed out that the mood of the community has been a gradual change to an adamant view of con- trolled growth, which is evidenced in their electing two County commissioners and a Mayor to that effect. Stated that that mood is very significant to any de- cision made. Kinsley pointed out that Francis Whitaker, former Councilmember, during the Gant proposal, said that the Council would work out a review of the Master Plan and amend the zoning to reduce the density. In- dicates the intent of the City. Stated that what is happening is that this City is committed to controlling growth, which is consistent with the mood of the community. Stated that if the Commission found this downzoning to be inappropriate, what they would be in effect doing, would be the first step in approving these projects and the additional projects, which is roughly 1,400 people. That would be the significance of disapproving this down-zoning. Kinsley stated that he felt the legal question should not be dealt with by the Commission, but rather by the City Attorney. Stated that the Commission's respon- sibility was to plan in such a way as to protect the public's welfare, which in this case, is down-zoning. BRUCE SUTHERLAND Sutherland stated that he would like to address the Commission and the Planning Office on the basis of planning procedures and what does help develope good planning. Further stated that these are not new things that have not been talked about before. Finds a problem in pick- ing this area and saying that all of a sudden these things exist in this area. They exist in the whole -11- "..... - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~O C. F. H OEeK EL B. e. a 1... co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 29, 1973 community. Feels that spot zoning is extremely dan- gerous. Sutherland further stated that he felt the Planning Office was unable to determine their goals. Still do not know what this community needs to survive. Feels that Ordinance #19 was a stopgap measure. Sutherland pointed out some of the inconsistencies in policy. The Planning Office policy is for now new growth in the ute Avenue area, yet the City runs a new 12" water line to the area for service. Feels the biggest problem now is inconsistency. BILL GAUDINO Gaudino stated that he was representing the Ute City Protective Association. Gaudino pointed out that a year ago the Planning & zoning Commission looked at the same problem that they are looking at tonight. Not something that they just pulled out of the blue. Stated the situation has been looked at for over a year. Stated that this is a recommendation which has come about from a lot of work. JIM MORAN Moran, attorney, stated that he represented the Clar- endon Project and also the Benedict-Larkin project. Moran stated that his point was that they have a pen- ding application which was filed and in process long before the proposed rezoning. Stated that he wished to talk about inherent fairplay which is the basis of many of our laws. Stated that in July, when Ordinance #19 was before the City Council and the P & Z, some people requested that they be honest if what they wanted was a moratorium while they get on with the planning and rezoning of the City. Both the Council and the Commission at that time said "No, we don't want to do that." Tl1eysaid that they wanted applicants to come in and discourse with t hem in an honest fashion and they would wrestle with these problems. It would not be a moratorium. Stated it would be a good give and take and would edu- cate them and inform the applicant and allow him to go forward with some of their plans, perhaps on a dif- ferent basis. Moran stated that that is exactly the way these ap- plicants responded. Stated that time and time again, the applicants were informed of problems with respect to the applications, such as what is the economic im- pact, and the myth that the tourist accommodation takes far more from the City in services than it contributes in revenue. Moran pointed out that the Clarendon explored that with a very responsible study. Stated that at every turn, the applicant was met with the statement, "We don't have enough information to assess the mass of facts that you've put before us." Pointed out that the reaction was constantly to give the Commission 90 days or give them more time to assess the pro- blem. Stated that then Ordinance #19 projects went -12- - --,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FGRiIl ~o C. r. H uECK E~ a. B. III L. co. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 29, 1974 a limbo. Stated that time and time again, the appli- cants were told that studies were underway and they would give them the information that was needed. Stated that upon being asked for 90 days while an eco- nomic impact study was conducted by the City, several of the applicants began to wonder exactly what was going to be done with those 90 days. Stated that then the process became one of the applicant saying that they would withdraw until the next meeting and maybe the Commission could tell them what they were doing and what information they would need fromfue applicant and what they were planning. Moran stated that on the very same night that these applicants were told that there was not enough infor- mation to assess an individual project in this area, the Planning Department asked the Commission to rec- ommend this rezoning of that very restricted area, so the question naturally arose, if they did not have the information necessary to assess an individual project where did they suddenly acquire the information that justifies the rezoning of the project area. Stated he did not believe that this rezoning is the result of three years of study. Feels it is a response of the Planning Office to specific applications that were here before this Commission and prosecuted in good faith. Feels that it is a response to get out of the Ordinance #19 process. Moran again stated that they had questioned whether Ordinance #19 would work when it was passed, and stated that he did not feel that it takes much real sense of fairness to say, "There's no more Ordinance #19 application because the downzoning plan now comes into play, but it has been very educational." Moran stated that his quarrel with this was its in- herent lack of fairness. Quarrel with the Planning Office is that they do not deal openly with appli- cants and those affected. Stated that this proposal was concocted the day that the applicant showed up to hear a clarification of what the definition of mixed-residential meant in this particular plan, and it was so indicated on the agenda. Moran indicated that he was disturbed by the philo- sophy of "Pull up the gangplank, I'm aboard." Felt that was not a very appropriate attitude for the com- munity. Moran stated that the neighborhood-by-neighborhood concept sounds good, but it is not. Stated that Or- dinance #19 was supposed to be the mechanism to res- pond to applications. Instead it is really begging the question to now come in with a downzoning. Feel that legally, does not feel it affects the pending applications. Stated that the statutes of this state and common sense tells us that what is needed when you are talking about problems as serious as those now being considered is a comprehensive plan. STACY STANDLEY Mayor Standley pointed out that he was speaking for himself, only, and not for the rest of the council. -13- "..... --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM '3 C.F.HOECKElB.B.& L. CO. S ecial Meeting As en Planning & Zoning Januar 29, 1974 Standley pointed out that a work session had been held a week ago Monday, and thinks that the record indi- cates that, in fact, a majority of the council is in favor of stopping accommodations growth within the community. Feels that further, the Council pointed out that they were in favor of limiting growth, con- trolling growth as much as possible by the 5 to 2 Resolution which was presented to the Commissioners this morning. Standley stated that he felt the Council's responsi- bility lies with the people, not with developers and not with specific individual landowners. Stated that the largest source of investment revenue in this country comes from the insurance companies. Stated that the second largest source is now from the Euro- pean and Japanese investment offices. Do not see either of these in Aspen. Standley stated that they are accused of reacting con- tinually rather than acting, however, feels these charges are levied by the development interests, who, to his way of thinking, have really not shown the good faith that they continually say they will show. Standley stated that as he sees it, Aspen is a town which survives on tourism, not a resort that exists to serve the tourists. Feels that Aspen's reality is in fact its vitality. Standley stated that he felt the community's preoc- cupation with developing tourist accommodations has precluded the mobility of people. Standley, in answer to Moran's statement on fairplay, questioned where the fairplay to the locals was, to the people who want to live here. Where is the fair- play in terms of the projects that have been proffer- red up to the commission over the last two years to bring permanent housing to this community, to bring anything that gives a semblance of a life style to someone, that does not preclude them and use up ano- ther parcel of land and force them yet further down the valley, and at the same time, require more people to support the community. Where is the fairplay to the people who live in the area who brought a refer- endum forward last year which was found defective, not insufficient. Standley pointed out that the 1 percent sales tax which was voted in by the people was a committment on the part of this community to buy open space and to take it out of development rights. Feels the fairplay goes both ways. Standley stated that the P & Z has an obligation to support the City council and each member of the Coun- cil has the obligation to support the P & Z and the Planning Office. AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE Bartel questioned if there were any comments on the amendment to the zoning code. Pointed out that the public hearing was scheduled for that as well. -14- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F O~M ~O C. F. H OECKEL B. B. Ii L. '-'D. S ecial Meetin As en Plannin & Zoning Januar 29, 1974 Bartel explained that this was to provide for a man- datory PUD provision and authority for the Planning and Zoning commission to designate areas within the City for a mandatory PUD. Stated that within those mandatory PUD areas for the P & Z to vary, through a review process, from single-family and duplex uses only, so that they may, through review, allow a four- plex, for example, in a mandatory PUD area. Bartel explained that the other provision is to change the minimum lot area required for a duplex in the R-6 zone from 6,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet. Moran questioned if those were at the original presen- tation or at the study session in written form. Bartel stated that they were not in written form, but the public hearing was set at the same time with the similar outline that he had just given. Stated that copies were available in the Planning office. Bartel stated that he wished to include in the file the research with respect to the ute City Protective Association, the Gant project:~~and some of the other things mentioned in the Planning & zoning history. Moran stated that if he understood Ordinance #9, if this moves forward from the Commission to City council with any kind of a recommendation at all, either ap- proval, disapproval or modification, does that not create a moratorium in this area until the City Coun- cil acts for one year, whichever first occurs. Bartel stated that it puts the recommendation of the Commission into effect for a one year period. Stated that the development may proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. Jim Breasted questioned if that meant that the R-15 units could be built there. Bartel stated that they could. Kern questioned if an application had been filed by the Planning & Zoning Commission for this rezoning. Kern stated that he had requested this. Bartel stated that they were unable to find an ap- plication and there is no application form. Kern stated that he had requested the names and ad- dresses of the property owners. Questioned if they were available at this time. Bartel stated that they could be picked up tomorrow. Chairman Gillis reminded the Commission that there would be a study session the following Tuesday at 12:00 noon in the City council Chambers. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. Vagneur made a motion to adjourn the meeting, se- conded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried, -15- {' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIC, C-F.HOECKELB.B.ftL.LO. Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. January 29, 1974 y ._'