Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.agmc.20000125 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Growth Management Committee - Joint Meeting w/Aspen P&Z Aspen, Colorado Approved: March 14, 2000 INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: Pitkin County Commissioners Peter Martin (chair) Gayle Embrey Peter Thomas Sheri Sanzone City of Aspen Commissioners Robert Blaich (Chair) Roger Haneman Timothy Mooney Roger Hunt Staff Cindy Houben Iulie Ann Woods Lance Clarke I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peter Martin called the meeting to order and stated that there was a quorum. II. COMMENTS Commisszoners There were no commissioner commems. Planning Stqff There were no planning staff comments. Public Comments There were no public comments. Peter Martin asked if any of the board members had a conflict of interest regarding tonight's business. 'Sheri Sanzone declared that she had a conflict with 7th & Main Accessory Commercial Exemption. Martin stated that it is the policy of the County to have the board member with a conflict remain present, but not participate ~n any way, III. MINUTES MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 A. March 16, 1999 B. June 15, 1999 C. November 9, 2000 Motion: Commissioner Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of the March 16, June 15. and November 9, 1999 meetings; seconded by Commissioner Sanzone. Motion passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. AACP Summary The purpose of the heating is to adopt the 2000 Aspen Area Community Update. The hearing for this plan was opened on January 18, 2000 and was continued to today. Staff Presentation 5ulie Ann Woods stated that the comments that were made by City and County P&Z and by citizens have been attached to the memo and are numbered for reference. Staff would expect the P&Zs to consider these items and seek public Comment be£ore adopting the plan. Woods noted that the city attorney, John Worcester is presem to address the issue of authority in adopting the plan. Preliminary Discussion Martin asked for Worcester's advise regarding whom has the authority to adopt -- the plan. Worcester stated that originally the question posed to him was whether or not the city council should adopt the plan by ordinance or by resolution. His advice at that time was that the city council should adopt it the same way they did the last time. Addressing Martin's question, he advised the commissioners that there should be a joint recommendation by the P&Zs, however the city council should make the final decision on the plan. He added that there should be some record indicating that the city council has approved what the commissioners have done. Roger Hunt noted concern that this could cause the P&Z to lose their authority by redefinition and not by legislative action. Worcester responded that was clearly not his intent. He pointed out that the land use code pretty much adopts the AACP by reference and because of that the city council should make the final decision. Hunt stated that he would like to move to adopt and then le! the city council take whatever action it wants to take. Summary of changes Noting the list that is attached tO the meeting memo, Cindy Houben stated that there should be discussion on these issues that were raised at the last meeting. 1. Should parcels such-as Zoline/BUrlingame, the Moore Family parcel, and the Gramiger parcel be labeled "Private Land with Conservation Value?" 2. Alternatively, should these parcels be noted on both the affordable housing and space maps? -- Comments MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Sanzone commented that she valued the work that the open space group had done on this had stated that some of their comments hadn't been brought forward. She stated that the group had identified parcels that didn't make it on to the open space map as parcels with conservation value. Sanzone wanted to ensure that these would be on the open space layer of the future land use map. Then a decision would have to be made whether these parcels should rise to the top as open space or affordable housing parcels. Houben noted that the future land use map indicates certain parcels that have growth, open space and affordable housing values. Martin stated the maps are key to this plan and asked how staff proposes to address this issue. Houben responded that there shouldn't be a conflict between the two maps. Labeling on the open space map would be appropriate, but it would have to show more than "private land with open space value". It would need to indicate that affordable housing is anticipated. Sanzone emphasized that this group didn't believe that some of these parcels could be a mix of affordable housing and open space. She hoped that after the plan is adopted and as part of the action to finalize the plan. staff would go back and talk to this group to make sure they hadn't missed anything. 3. Should there be a green zone around the City of Aspen but not as far as the AABC? Comments Woods noted that this was Tom Cardemon's commenT. She stated that there is quite a bit of open lands in the greenfrastructure of the composite map. She thought that his hope is that there would be even more. 4. Should the word physical be added before ~'growth would slow and stop" in the philosophy section of growth? Comments Sanzone stated that she didn't like that recommendation because it implied that there weren't other types of growth and thought it should be left alone. There was general agreement regarding this. 5. Do 800-1300 affordable housing units seem too high? Comments There was a consensus among the board members not to re-visit this as they've been over many times before. 6. Should this number of units be a goal not a policy? Comments Martin stated that it should remain a policy. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7. Should "study the feasibility of creating minimum zoning density, which promotes the goals of AACP" be added to the Action Items? Comments There was consensus that this should be added to the action items. 8. Should the concentric rings be placed on a map of thc city with the original town site and the city limits to use as a tool for action item #5? Comments Woods stated that this had been a suggestion by Steve Bue~tow and he isn't presem at the meeting tonight. There was general agreement that concentric nngs shouldn't be placed on the map. A statemem was made that the theory map was adequate to describe this. Sanzone stated that they'd spem a lot of time trying m place concentric nngs on the map and hadn't been able to do it~ 9. Should goal C, page 14-15 be added to the housing section? Comments Woods stated that this was a goal that is in the growth section that Jasmine Tygre had felt very strongly should be placed in the housing section as well. Martin responded that Charlie Tarver had made the case that this would be redundant, Another member noted that this reinforces it. There was consensus to leave it alone. 10. Should Action Item #77 be added to #2? Comments Woods stated that #2 became a catchall and it's related to looking into the whole relationship of residential development as it relates to GMQS. By consensus they agreed that #77 should be added to #2. 11. Should Action Item #5. have added to status: finished and ready for work session? Comments There was no objection to add to #5. 12. Should #8 have included with it gl 1.12, 22, 32, 56? Comments The request was to roll a lot of the housing action items into one group. Martin asked if this helped in any way with the draft'mg. Houben responded that it makes it more convenient for the public. There was agreemem to include gl 1, 12, 22, 32 and 56 in #8. 13. Should "look at volume" be added to action item #3? Comments There was a consensus that "look at volume" should be added to #3. 14. Is #17 appropriate? MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Comments Woods stated that this was adding neighborhood commercial and service commercial industrial zoned areas. This is additional work to consider. Tygre's comment at the last meeting was that it wasn't appropriate, There was a consensus to leave it as is. 15. Should the ADU action item #58 be included in #2 GMQS? Comments Woods thought that Steve Buettow had suggested this be looked at in terms of the whole GMQS issues. There was a consensus to add the ADU action item #58 to #2. 16. Should #95 be part of #2? Comments The idea would be to capture whatever growth could be captured for change in use application and this should be rolled into GMQS. There was consensus to have 95 be part of 2. 17. Should #98 be higher up? Comments There was consensus to move this higher up, but after #10. 1.8. Should some of the transportation items be moved up? Comments Charlie Tarver made this suggestion at the last meeting because none of the transportation issues had made it to the top 10 priorities. There was consensus that # 18 and #34 should be moved up. 19. Should other items be addressed before #9? Comments Woods noted that this had been Roger's issue at the last meeting. There was consensus to leave this as is. Public Comments Connie Harvey commented that she felt there was a rush to get this wrapped up. There may be some bad mistakes being made particularly regarding the urban growth boundary reaching way out as a result of the flagpole annexation that was done to capture Maroon Creek Club and Burlingame property. The various committees didn't endorse this. There has been a lot of talk about infill being a good idea and trying to keep green space beyond the city, There is a fomed issue to get the Burlingame Housing. She stated that this is a huge mount of growth. She understands there is a need for employee housing, at the same time it's an engine of growth. She noted that Maroon Creek is critical wildlife habitat. She stated that transportation is a huge issue~ The road that is proposed as an access road is noticeably more dangerous and doesn't think it could 5 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 possibly work. She staled that she had spoken with Ralph Trappani who basically stated that this being a private road, wasn't his problem. She stated that it is a serious problem and could be a matter of life and death. She thought the answer right now is to temporarily put the urban growth boundary at Maroon Creek until they can sort out some of these issues. Joy Caudill stated that she agreed with everything that Connie said specifically the danger of the proposed road. Referencing Deer Hill, Joy stated that it was agreed at the last meeting, that this wasn't critical habitat as far as the state wildlife maps were concerned. Rick Thompson a wildlife official from Denver had secondarily identified Deer Hill as being critical wildlife habitat for deer and smaller animals because of the sage brush in that habitat. Comfie Harvey noted that giving Mr. Zoline the right to put the free market units there as a reward for allowing the City to take some of that land is exactly against every principle the community plan endorses. It is an engine of growth. Toni Kronenberg stated that she didn't realize the public meeting process had started. She's been a member of the transportation committee for 2 ½ years and didn't see a public notice for the first meeting. It is her understanding that this particular piece of property, that Connie and Joy are talking about, is going to be labeled open space with affordable housing. She doesn't want to get into the same situation that happened with Bass Park. She feels very strongly that it should be labeled "private land with conservation value". She suggested that it have a dual purpose and then when i~ goes through the process, two interns could be looked at. Houben responded that the map ~s labeled as an affordable housing, open space mix. This is what was discussed in the meetings. There may be a difference of opimon as to whether that is what should happen. Kronenberg stated that the AACP criteria require developmem or housing to be within a ~A mile ofttansit oriented system. She stated that she was very concerned about the access of New Stage Road. She noted the transportation aspect as being the real concern. Kronenberg asked if Musick was removed from the W/J project, could that site be looked at for affordable housing as a potential site. Woods responded that the urban growth boundary as moved inward to be the outer most ring from the intersection of the North Forty project. She referenced those boundaries on the map. Houben stated that this is something that would be more appropriately addressed by the BOCC. Houben stated that there have been lots of discussions regarding the appropriateness of having a mix of housing and open space land on certain parcels. It is her opinion that they've been incorporated through review of the park's department into the open space map. There are differences of opinion and a decision will have to be made about how they want the open space maps to work. She stated that there is a draft before them tonight and they do need to act on that. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Roger asked what happened with the Brush Creek intersection in thc process of shrinking the urban growth boundary. Woods responded that it became a transit oriented development node. So they would anticipate some level of development. Roger asked if transportation were by W/J would this be an incentive for re- looking at W/J for transportation developmem type node. Sanzone responded that it's not part of the scope right now as far as the rail study has gone. Regarding the wording in the plan, Krunenburg thought it was important to be consistent to ensure the balance and integration between Aspen and the resort and Aspen and the community, Commissioner Comments Addressing Connie Harvey's remarks, Bob Blaich stated that he happened to agree with her on the Burlingame points she made. Both the City and the County have agreed to ask Trappani for clarification and try to find a better solution for the problem. They received a boiler plate answer from him that he isn't satisfied with. He noted that Harvey has hit some very important points here and this is something that they will have to deal with. Tim Mooney stated that he is happy that the urban growth boundary includes this, so the City P&Z can have it on their table. He thought the deal stunk from the beginning, and it was never a community development plan, The City P&Z will watch it closely. City P&Z Motion: Commissioner Roger Hunt, moved to adopt Resolution 2000-03 with the changes discussed tonight as well as the change in the title, specifically removing the word" r¢c0mmending adoption of 3 and 11; seconded by 9. Commissioners Hunts Haneman, Mooney and Blaich voted unanimously in favor of the motion. County P&Z Motion: Commissioner Sanzone moved to approve the joint resolution of the Aspen mad Pitkin County P&Z adopting respectively the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan update, with modification as discussed and agreed to tonight; seconded by Commissioner Thomas. Commissioners Martin, Sanzune, Embrey, and Thomas voted unanimously in favor of the motion. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Stillwater Affordable Housing Growth Management Exemption/ Deduction/Allocation Summary of request The Applicant has applied for an exemption from the "scoring" and "competition" procedures of growth management as provided for in Code section 3-150-030 for an affordable housing project to include 17 units (13, 3 bedroom units and 4 one-bedroom units) to be located on Lot 1 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD east of the City of Aspen. The proposed category and square footage mix are as follows: 7 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Bedroom/Units Number of Units Category Unit Square Footage per Unit One 2 Category 2 988.88 One 2 Category 3 1004.3 Three 6 Category 3 1427.1 Three 7 Category 4 1427.1 Total 17 The property was conveyed by the Benedict Family to Pitkin County for the purpose of either constructing affordable housing, constructing a single family residence or selling the property. The project has not yet received conceptual PUD approval by BOCC. The County P&Z will be reviewing the project in its entirety this evening. Staff Presentation Tamara Pregl gave a briaf description of the project as outlined above. She referenced the site plan of the subdivision. Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Application Lee Novak, project manager for housing, stated that they are posing a 17-unit project. He referenced the map to orient the commissioners on the Iocation. He discussed the no. of bedrooms per unit and referenced the basic layout~ Novak stated that they tried to use the topography of the land and retain as much natural vegetation as possible. They had two goals, to provide family oriented housing and then to create the density that was necessary to address the community need. They also needed to balance density with respect to the natural beauty of the site. It's neither in the urban core or the rural area, and they used the architecture of the site plan to reflect that position. They have tried to comply with all or most of the protective covenants on this parcel. Even those covenants that do not apply to affordable housing have been moved forward. They are also trying to ~ncorporate green building design elements. They believe these goals and elements will create a project that is affordable and beautiful to live in and will create a great neighborhood as well. Bob Blaich asked what the status is on this project for potential annexation. Novak responded that there is an existing water service agreement, which allows the City to annex the parcel, although he doesn't think there is a plan to annex this parcel. Referring to Criteria E in Novak's report, Blalch stated that there seemed to be some controversy by the neighbors with this project and asked ifNovak was satisfied that the neighbors are in agreement with this proposal. Novak indicated that he was not. He stated that they've tried several different avenues to obtain feedback and the feedback has been very minimal. Blaich asked for clarification on the Benedicts' right for approval on this. Novak responded that the Benedict family has the right to comment on this application. Pregl stated thru she has spoken with Jesse Benedict who indicated that overall they like the 8 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 project, however they definitely have a concern with Building G and its closeness to Lot 2. She hasn't received anything in writing from them. Mooney asked where the referral comments were on parks dedication. Pregl responded that she did not receive any referral comments from Open Space and Trails or City Parks Deparmaent. Novak stated these were difficult sites for building and they do not want to impact the riparian area. There are two benefits for donating this to Open Space, it's the beginning of the East Aspen Trail, and this is a significant additional area for the homeowners to maintain. Mooney asked what the value of the property is. Novak responded that they had a choice to do a dollar contribution based on the caiculation that is in the code, or they could do a land contribution, which turns out to be close to seven acres. It seemed it was more ora benefit to do the least expensive alternative and have a win-win solution for the homeowners. Pregl responded that the BOCC does need to accept this and they may require a cash-in-lieu payment. Public Comments Martin introduced Tom Raganetti as one of the founders of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute and one of the leaders of land use law in the country. Raganety stated that he also a land use lawyer from Denver and is representing four sets of neighbors that are extraordinarily concerned with this project. He stated that their concerns would be reserved for the planning commission later this evening. Commissioner Comments Martin asked if they were optimizing density on this project and is it something they should consider at this time. Lance Clark stated that the recommendation of uni! numbers is very importanl and it should come from the Growth Management Committee. Thomas asked for clarification on where the carrying capacity figure is coming from and why it's not being optimized. Novak responded that the County has certain codes on what is buildable and what is not. He noted different areas to be avoided such as steep slopes, riparian areas, etc.. He noted that this is under scenic review, which limits height, which makes for a wider footprint. Sanzone stated that she is very comfortable with the density they are showing on their site plan. She stated that their concerns about cut and fill are real and the economic impacts to the project would be huge. For the location in town, this is an appropriate project. Martin stated that this seems to look exactly like a public housing project and he wondered if they couldn't do better than that. He suggested they could design building that look like single family residences that are four-plexes. Sanzone stated that it does resemble a single-family residence that has been very well done. Novak stated that from the side view you could see that the buildings are broken out into separate features. B laich stated that from a design point of view it's a very good project. Haneman asked why everything shows the entrances to the project from the south end. Novak noted that the existing roadway was on a very steep slope and the protective 9 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 covenants state that entrances to each lot must be at a 90-degree angle from Stillwater Lane. Motion: Commissioner Sanzone moved to recommend, as the Growth Management Commission, to the BOCC, that they exempt 17 affordable housing units from the scoring and competition procedures of GMQS for Lot 1 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD sub.~ect to conditions as stated in the staff memo; seconded by Commissioner Blaich. Motion passed unanimously by the Growth Management Committee. Motion: There was a unanimous motion by the Growth Management Committee to extend the meeting until 7:30. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. 7th & Main Accessory Commercial Exemption Staff Presentation Chris Bendon, staff member, presented a summary of the application stating that this is a city project, He noted that this is a public hearing and it was noticed in the Aspen Times on January 8t~' Bendon stated that he has been requested to disclose that he and Commissioner Sheri Sanzone are in a relationship and that Sheri works for Design Workshop who has been retained by the housing authority to produce a landscape plan for the project. Sanzone has no involvement in the project at Design Workshop, neither Bendon or Sanzone have a financial interest in the project and they have not discussed this at home. Bendon discussed the review process stating that this is an exemption review for recommendation to city council. This is a mixed-use application for 11 affordable housing units with a comer store to be located at 7th and Main. The comer store is approximately 650 Sq. Ft. and this review is just regarding the commercial exemption. For voting purposes, the simple majority is all that is necessary, Bendon discussed staff's various reasons for supporting the application, which included the creation of a community. He noted that he has two letters to read into the record at the appropriate time. Applicant presentation Lee Novak, Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, added to Bendon's presentation stating that there are 10 one-bedroom units, and a single two-bedroom unit. There are eight on site parking spaces. They have two proposals for off site parking. The applicant has proposed to do three remote spaces at Benedict Commons and the housing board has asked for three on street parking permits. He referred m maps and discussed the building design. He stated that the HPC has recommended unanimous conceptual approval and that the housing board has also approved this project. Regarding the store, Novak stated that the decision te add the store was not easily made. Discussing trip reduction, he stated that there is a significant neighborhood 10 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 population as well as a sizeable hotel population and instead of getting in their car and going to Clark's or City Market. they will go to the corner store. The second benefit is a neighborhood gathering space and noted that in his experience these informal meeting places really enforce the community. The third benefit is affordable commercial space for a locally serving business, noting the high commercial rent in this community. The current plan is to charge only enough rent to cover the loan for development cost and they believe this will help them recruit a locally serwng business. He discussed space available for waste and recycling receptacles. He stated that this is an experiment in bringing together a number of community goals, including housing, trip reduction and enhancing neighborhood vitality. They believe it is important that the City create this as a model for bringing these goals together, noting that there aren't any standards for mixed use like this. Blaich asked where the trash would be located and how it is accessed. The applicant pointed out the receptacle locations and truck movement on the map. He stated that the trash would move from the back door of the store to the receptacle. He also asked how the commercial space would be serviced, noting that delivery at the front of the store is totally unacceptable and the alley should be used for this. There was discussion on how this could be made possible. Another member pointed out that there were concerns about delivery vehicles using the alley because of the carports being oriented offthe alley. Blaich also noted that there were concerns regarding the city subsidizing commercial space. Public Comments: Dan Martinau. a neighbor, stated that he was unable to stay for this port/on of the meeting, but wanted to point out that his primary concern is parking. This is already a major issue and he understands that there are fewer parking spaces than units proposed. He stated that the average unit carries two vehicles and it would be nice if this were addressed tonight. He noted that he'd written a letter, which was included in the packet. Andy Abbott, resident of 7th & Hopkins, stated that he thinks this is a bad project. He pointed out the location of the parking in the alley and noted that trucks coming in and out o£the alley would block it. He stated that rail and bus isn't approved yet, so cars are parked there already and if commercial is brought in and not allowed to park on Main. the residents won't have any place to park. Toni Kronenberg stated that she is definitely in favor of affordable housing. She stated that she worked on the transportation committee with the AACP and the goal was to decrease the amount of traffic coming into town. She stated that they had recommended a long-term parking lot out at the Aspen Airport where people could rent spaces. She noted other recommendations within the AACP planning. She encouraged the commission to take a look at the intent, philosophy and goals and make it a priority. Regarding the commercial use presented in the application. Kronenberg stated that this comer is over used and the parking is really tight there already and it's a dangerous intersection. She doesn't think a convenience store is appropriate. 11 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January. 25. 2000 Motion: There was a unanimous motion to extend the meeting until 8:00PM. Commissioner Comments Martin noted that when he first read the application he thought it was great and the presentation was excellent. He stated that having heard from the public and the table he is now convinced that the project is flawed and there is a tight parking situation there, Another member noted that store employee parking would be an issue also. A comment was made that there was a question on whether that employee might get a unit there. Another comment was made that the proposed commercial activity is too much in this location and would not attract the social characteristic that is desired, mostly because of its location. Motion: Commissioner Tim Mooney made a recommendation of approval to the Aspen City Council for the Growth Management Exemption for a 650 Sq. Ft. accessory commercial space for the comer store proposed at 7th & Main Affordable Housing Prqiect pursuant to the GMQS Resolution 0004; seconded by Commissioner ?, Additional Discussion Embrey stated that she couldn't find a parking place in 1989 or 1990 when she worked there and that was before the affordable housing was built behind it, She feels like there is a sense of community at City Market in El Jebel and she's not sure that they ~ need that at this point. Bendon read two letters into the record. One letter is from Daniel Martinan who was heard earlier in the meeting. The other was from Gayle Parker who states that the commercial accessory unit is larger than her unit and the space should be used for another living space, or storage for owners. Thomas stated that he didn't understand why they'd need a convenience store there, it certainly wouldn't be a gathering space and it wouldn't have the impact that is expected for cutting down on site generated traffic. Motion Continued: The motion failed unanimously. There was discussion on providing an amended resolution for the benefit of the City Council. The conclusion was to not provide a follow-up resolution. B. Stanger Metro Residential Scoring/Allocation Summary The Applicant is requesting one metro area residential GMQS allotment to develop one free market dwelling unit. The Applicant proposed to creme a 1.8-acre development envelope, which includes a 0.6-acre building envelope. The Applicant also proposes to establish a 5.625 square foot public park along Smuggler Road, to dedicate a public trail ._ easement along Smuggler Mountain Road. and to designate 9.7 acres of the property as 12 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, Jantmry 25, 2000 an open space and wildlife enhancement area. The Applicant proposes to limit the allowable floor area on the property to 11,000 square feet, where 15,000 square feet could potentially be allowed in the AFR-10 zone district. In addition, the Applicant proposes to limit the maximum height of the residence to 26 feet, where 28 feet is allowed in the AFR-10 zone district. Staff Presentation Suzarme Wolff stated that she included the scoring procedures in the packet. She gave a summary of the application as outlined above and pointed out the location on the map provided. She added that Herb Klein stated that the applicant has now agreed to limit the floor area on the property to 7500 Sq. Ft. Wolff went through the staff scoring on the project as outlined in the packet stating that they gave the project a total score of 9 points. They found that it did not meet the threshold score of 3 points in three of the categories. Regarding the 1 *' criteria, Wolffsummarized the applicant's proposals stating that staff has recommended a score of 3. Regarding the 2"a criteria, Wolff summarized the applicant's proposals stating that staffhas recommended a score of 2. Regarding the 3'a criteria, Wolff summarized the applicant's proposals and stated that staff has recommended a score of 2. Regarding the 4th criteria, Wolff summarized the applicant's proposals stating that staff has recommended a score of 2. Staff's recommendation is that a development allotment be denied for the application. Motion: There was a unanimous motion to extend the meeting an additional 15 minutes. Applicant Presentation Herb Klein, attorney and applicant's representative, introduced Bob and Gayle Stanger. He stated that it is important to consider how the scoring is supposed to work. He stated that the code gives guidance and suggests criteria for the scoring. Some of these are irrelevant and some the project simply cannot satisfy. He stated that the code addresses this and states that projects should be evaluated according to reasonable expectations regarding what can be expected given their size and scale. Klein asked the commissioners to be fair and impartial and to look at this application based upon its merits. He stated that they've done as much as possible given the reality of the site and its location. With respect to the details of the project, he stated that Suzarme had explained where they were pretty well, He referred to a concept map of Wilk Wilkinson's in an effort to address concerns the commissioners may have regarding development on Smuggler. He stated that if this development were approved, it wouldn't encourage incremental developmem up the face of Smuggler because the slopes are extremely steep and it's unlikely that anything would be built there. He noted Wilkinson's assertion that Smuggler Mountain Road is owned in fee by the Smuggler Mountain Toll Company. He suggested the possibility that somebody else might come in with a different development 13 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25. 2000 plan for this property and that there is a potential for eight new building sites if this happens. This threat would be extinguished by their developmem. Criteria I: Revitalizing the permanent commumty: Klein noted that they didn't have any arguments with affordable housing, he did think the score should have been more than three, but didn't want to belabor the point. Criteria 2: Providing transportation alternatives: Klein noted staff's comment that people will continue to drive because of the location. He stated that this is probably true, but it's not necessarily true for all possible trips. He stated that there is a culture of hiking and biking on that trail and there is a bus stop at the end of the road. He suggested that there is no reason m think that people won't be riding their bikes or walking in the summer. With respect to the trail easement, Klein stated that it is clearly not going to be used so long as Smuggler Mountain Road is being used in the current fashion and not serving any future developmem up top. There is already a trail there, and no reason to create another trail. If at some point in the future there is more development ar the top, the Smuggler Mountain Road will need to be widened and improved. If that happens, the trail easement will be important. Klein stated that they have proposed a public park. and this could make the road an even more popular destination. The most s~gnificant contribution is the contribution of money to RFTA. RFTA has said that $5,000 would cover a bus shelter and they are proposing an additional $5,000 to go towards the purchase of buses. The code does not require any exaction related to RFTA. so this is purely voluntary. He noted that they've responded to all except two of the transportation criteria. Item f, "creating a less congested downtown core" was clearly not applicable to this proposal and that he wasn't sure how they would achieve item h. "altering land use patterns to accommodate and contribute to a more efficient and effective transit system", They believe that they have made an exemplary proposal and should receive a score of al least 4. Criteria 3: Promoting environmentally sustainable developmem: Klein noted the proposed park on the map and stated it would be a fabulous commumry amenity. He discussed the plans for the park. He stated that they've proposed a 5,200 Sq. Ft. park that would take further approvals because it would require fill on steep slopes and they are willing to go through this process. Regarding 1041 compliance, Klein stated that they can't avoid the severe wildfire hazard. He stated that there is no place on either of the two claims that doesn't have this hazard. They've avoided steep slopes wh~re possible. The larger envelope ~s necessitated by the need for a place for the well, septic and driveway. There are portions of the development envelope that contain 30% slopes. They feel the project should be scored based upon what they are proposing to do as everything else is and they are proposing to mitigate the wildfire hazard. He stated that scrub oak is very flammable and if there were Aspen trees there instead of scrub oak they would be in a moderate wildfire hazard area. The state forester said that the aspen trees would come back if they cut 14 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 down the scrub oak and this was a great opportunity to create a much healthier and more natural environment there. He discussed other proposals for wildfire mitigation such as providing an easement to the fire department. He stated that the fire department has approved their plans. Regarding enhancing wildlife habitat, Klein stated that they've avoided critical wildlife habitat and winter range for elk and deer is above the road. They've proposed a wildlife protection and enhancement area. He discussed other proposals for enhancing wildlife habitat. He suggested the scoring was low and that they should have at least a 4 or 5. Criteria 4: Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character: Klein stated that there are several criteria that staff acknowledges doesn't apply to them. It basically comes down to the compatibility of the house and the neighborhood. He discussed the proposals as outlined in the packet. He referenced a map to note the building envelope and proposed design. He also passed out photos of the property from different viewpoints in town, and stated that it wouldn't be visible from virtually all of downtown. Public Comments Chet ? asked what the impact to the road would be. Klein responded that the county engineer hasn't required any road improvements, so the road will remain the xvay it is. Stuart Lusk stated that he lives in town, is familiar with the project and noted his support for the project. Commissioner Comments Regarding Klein's statement about the eight houses, Wolff clarified that the County maintains that Smuggler Road is considered to be held in easement, and not in fee, and, therefore, that the road does not subdivide the property. Regarding development below allowable density, she stated that this is in the AFR-10 zone district and is based on a 10 acres minimum lot size. This merged parcel contains 16 acres and essentially meets the zoning requirement. She stated that there were different criteria at the time the Silver Brick Claim obtained a GMQS allotment. Regarding the roads, the road management and maintenance plan does not allow plowing above a certain point, so there will have to be a change to the road maintenance designation in order to plow the road all the way up to the property. That hasn't been requested at this point. Suzanne noted that Ed Van Walraven. the fire chief, said it would be questionable whether they would have adequate access to the property if the road weren't plowed. Hunt asked who plowed the road now. Suzanne responded that the county plows it now up to the last existing residence and they would have to go to the BOCC to request a change to that plan. In response to this, Klein stated that Bud Eylar had given very little feedback on this and they were not aware of that designation. He 15 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 stated that he was surprised that Bud didn't memion this in his referral comments. This is something they will have to look into. Sanzone asked what Parks thought about the hiking and biking park that is proposed. Wolff responded that she did not receive comments from Parks. or from Open Space & Trails. Sanzone asked if RFTA had identified the proposed bus shelter as an improvement that they would like to make. Wolff responded that Mike Davis hadn't mentioned that, but had commented that $5,000 was more than enough to construct the bus shelter. Martin stated that the GMQS scoring has always been hard to read and understand. He read a section in the code, "it is recognized that differem types of projects will address certain concerns and others won't and that these things should be flexible". Martin stated that trying to apply standards that don't apply puts them in an awkward position. He understands that development on Smuggler is not popular, but if ever there was a time to be judicious and make an unpopular call, he thought this case stands om as one they have to be very careful with. Wolff pointed out that the code states that projects should be evaluated according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be expected given their size and scale. Staff had a lot of discussion regarding the fact that the code doesn't include location in this statement. She stated that location is an obvious problem with this application and it definitely affected how they scored this and it's an important thing to consider for a property that does not have a development right. Grafton Smith stated that he spent eight years working up there and he got to know everybody up there. He stated that he is really glad that he was asked to be a pan of tlfis project because this is exactly what he would do. Vote: Ballots were signed and collected by staff. Clarke reported average scores: Criteria 1: 2.875 Criteria 2:2.125 Criteria 3: 2.625 Criteria 4:2.625 The threshold was not reached in any of the categories. Additional Discussmn There was no additional discussion. Final Vote: Ballots were signed and collected by staff. Clarke reported average scores: Criteria 1: 2.75 Criteria 2:2.25 Criteria 3:2.5 Criteria 4:2.5 These scores do not meet the threshold. 16 MINUTES of the Pitkln County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, January 25, 2000 Clarke stated that this recommendation would now be forwarded to the City Council and the BOCC. The applicant has fourteen days to appeal the scoring. If they do, a joint City Council/BOCC meeting would have to occur within 30 days. Additional Discussion: Blaich stated that staff was irresponsible in overloading the commissioner's agenda for this evening. He thought it was extremely unfair to the people that are here to make presentations. He noted that he intended to mention this to the city staff also. Clarke responded that at the time they scheduled the GMQS, the AACP was not on the agenda. Blaich responded that this shouldn't have been allowed. VII. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned. 17