Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.20000208 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8, 2000 Regular Meeting Aspen, Colorado Draft: 2nd INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commissioners Peter Martin (chair) Charlie Tarver Steve Whipple Gayle Embrey City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissioners Bob Blaich Roger Hunt Roger Haneman Ron Erickson Steve Buettow Staff Lance Clarke Tamara Pregl Gabe Preston Applicants or Representatives for: · Buttermilk Commercial Growth Management Scoring/Allocation · Pfister Commercial Growth Management Scoring~ Allocation & GMQS Exemption · Road to Buck's LLC Commercial Growth Management Scoring/Allocation I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peter Martin called the meeting to order. II. COMMENTS Commissioners A comment was made that Tim Mooney was unable to be present due to a pre- determined conflict of interest by the City Attorney because he is a ski instructor for the Aspen Ski Company. Martin stated that Sheri Sanzone would not be presem, also due to a conflict of interest with the Buttermilk application. Planning Staff There were no planning staff comments. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Public Comments There were no public comment~. III. MINUTES A. December 7, 1999 Page 7, 4t~ sentence from the bottom of the page, Tarver noted the word "set" should be changed to "sit". The minutes were approved. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Buttermilk Commercial Growth Management Scoring/Allocation Summary of Request The applicant is requesting Commercial Growth Management Quota System allotments for the Buttermilk Master Plan. Discussion on Process Addressing the three applications before the board(s) tonight, Lance Clarke stated that this is Pitkin County's annual competition for commercial growth management allocations. Clarke explained that each year there are 43 Employee Generation Units available from Pitkin County exclusive of the City of Aspen. Employee Generation Units represent one full time employee and are translated into allocations. The BOCC has the option of moving forward any allocations that haven't been used in past years, however they have opted not to do that. Clarke stated that although the City and the County do not meet jointly regarding commemial allocations, the City has been asked to be a pan of the Buttermilk discussion to provide input. The City will not be voting. Growth management allocation is the first requirement that an application has to go through in the approval process. There are specific threshold requirements that must be met in order for the application to be considered for an allotment. A project that does not meet the thresholds is essentially denied for that year. A project that meets the threshold requirements could go on to the next step of the process, however, it could still be denied. Clarke stated that Buttermilk is only going through the scoring and the allocation process tonight. The merit issues of the Buttermilk Master Plan will be dealt with in subsequent meetings. Clarke discussed the procedure for the scoring process stating that they would hear all presentations, all public input and score the applications simultaneously. Sta~'f Presentation Clarke provided a background on the Buttermilk Master Plan as outlined in the memo. Clarke discussed the scoring criteria stating that the numbers in the packet provided tonight are the most recent numbers. Criteria StaffRecommended Score Extended Score 2 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Water 2 2 Sewer 2 2 Storm Drainage 2 2 Fire Protection 2 2 Road System 2 2 Public & Private Transit Systems 3 3 Site Design 3 12 Resource Conservation 2 2 Parking & Circulation 2 4 Environmental Impacts 2 6 Visual Impacts 2 2 Affordable Housing 10 10 In summary, Clarke stated that a score of 2 means that development can be handled by the existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general, or service improvements simply meet the standards of the Land Use Code. Improvements will have to be made with the water and sewer system. The applicant has agreed to pay a fair share cost of those improvemems. Clarke stated that Buttermilk is unique in terms of access to transit with more bus stops, regular RFTA stops and skier shuttles. The design also accommodates the future potential of rail. Staff believes the proposal demonstrates a commitment that is above the norm and should be given a higher rating than the standard. There is significant landscaping proposed around the roadways and the garage as well as up and down the pedestrian spine that runs from Hwy 82, to Bumps. The parking garage and its circulation system as well as the proposed circulation system for the bus drop off have been done very well. Clarke noted that city staff feels the parking lot may not be adequately screened from people driving up valley on Hwy 82. There is a referral written by Nick Lelack, from city planning. Clarke pointed out that the applicant is providing more housing on site than has been generated. Total Clarke stated that the maximum score available was 61 points, the minimum threshold is 36.6 points and staff has recommended a score of 49 points. Applicant Presentation Glen Horn, Aspen Ski Company representative, introduced himself and stated that they wouldn't be making a presentation tonight, as they are aware that the Board is familiar with the Buttermilk Application. Public Comments 3 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Start Clausen, representing the West Buttermilk homeowners, referenced a memo regarding the Buttermilk Application, as provided in the meeting packet. The memo outlines issues that have been resolved as well as conditions that are requested. Clausen made special note of concern regarding the potential reconfiguration of the intersection. He asked that staff continue to monitor this issue. Clauscn stated that they do not believe any of their issues affect the scoring of the application. Commissioner Comments Run Erickson asked what the maximum multiplier Used in scoring was. Clarke responded that the multipliers are set by the Land Use Code and aren't discretionary. Regarding the Buttermilk on Mountain Employee Generation Plan, Erickson stated that if the total number of employees generated by this project goes up, then the required employee housing numbers would have to go up. If this happens the scoring could be overstated. Erickson stated that he questions the numbers that have been presented and stated that it is in the applicant's best interest to understate these numbers. Horn stated that they have done an independent calculation, as required by code, as to what those numbers are going to be. The applicant has agreed to house 100% of whatever the generation is going to be. Clarke stated that an employee audit condition would be added when they get to the point of approving the application. Regarding the four way intersection, Blaich stated that a number of those present believe the current solution is not practical. They have asked for staff to address this issue, and have received the same answer as before. He stated that this needs more attention. Martin agreed and stated that they should come to a joint resolution regarding this matter. Regarding Lelack's presentation, Blaich asked if there has been a proposal on how the site could accommodate up to twice the number of affordable housing units. Clarke responded that there have been no additional presentations. Blaich stated that he wanted to make sure that the City's concerns are fairly represented. Noting city staff's concern over the parking facility, Blaich stated that in his view this issue is being solved aesthetically with the type of plarming they have proposed. Steve Buettow stated that his main concern is the parking lot, because it's so huge. Art Pfister suggested the use of an underpass to pull Owl Creek, Stage Road and Buttermilk together and stated that it would solve all of the problems presented Carol Pragert of West Buttermilk stated that she agrees with Art Pfister and that it would be a win-win situation. Noting a memo by Mary Richards, the housing authority director, Erickson asked if employee generation on this project would be phased. The response was that it would 4 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 be. He continued, suggesting that they should be very careful about allocating 100% in this year. City P&Z members left the meeting at the conclusion of the Buttermilk discussion. B. Pfister Commercial Growth Management Scoring/Allocation & GMQS Exemption Summary of Request The applicant is requesting approval to construct an approximately 3,281 sq. ft. addition, which will include: 1,325 sq. ft. of new commercial space and 1,956 sq. ft. of new residential space for three additional affordable housing units. The construction of additional commercial square footage requires Metro Commercial GMQS allotments for 4.65 Employee Generation Units (EGU's). In addition, for the proposed three affordable housing units, the Applicant is requesting Growth Management Exemption and Special Review. Staff Presentation Tamara Pregl presented a background of the application stating that the property is located in the AABC. She discussed the applicant's proposal as outlined in the packet. Criteria Staff Recommended Score Extended Score Water 2 2 ?~'~ Sewer 2 2 Storm Drainage 2 2 Fire Protection 2 2 Road System 2 2 Public & Private Transit Systems 2 2 Site Design 3 12 Resource Conservation 2 2 Parking & Circulation 2 4 Environmental Impacts 2 6 Visual Impacts 2 2 Affordable Housing 10 10 Pregl stated that the applicant hasn't proposed any modifications to the system au this time. The applicant is proposing to improve the drainage system by installing two drywells. The applicant has worked with the Aspen Fire District and has made some modifications to their circulation to accommodate for any type of fire apparatus. The applicant represented a total of 45 trips per day and Environmental Health has indicated 52-62 trips per day. Eylar indicated that the entire project would create 66-67 trips per day. Environmental Health is requiring a PM10 mitigation plan be submitted for construction. RFTA has indicated that the site design is very transit oriented. Referencing a map, Pregl stated that the applicant is improving the site. The new addition would comply with the building code. The applicant is improving the parking 5 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 and circulation on the site. There are no environmental impacts on this site, with the exception of air quality. Environmental Health is recommending a PM10 mitigation plan be submitted for this. The applicant is proposing screening from adjacent neighbors. Thc proposed addition will be lower than the second building, so there will be some visibility from the affordable housing units. Regarding affordable housing, Pregl stated that the applicant is mitigating for more than the required EGUs. The applicant is proposing three affordable housing units, two 1 bedrooms and one studio. The housing authority has recommended a score of 10. Total The maximum score available is 61, The minimum threshold score is 36.6. Staff has recommended a total of 48. Whipple pointed out a subtotal error on page 7 under Quality of Design. The subtotal should be 26, not 22. Applicant Presentation Alan Richman, the applicant's representative, introduced himself and thanked the Board for the opportunity to present their application. Richman stated that they are pleased with the staff review of the project. He pointed out that they are creating three new affordable housing units that are very desirable to the housing office, and making a significant improvement in the appearance of the site. They are allowing for the continuation and expansion of several local serving businesses in the metro area. Referencing a map, Richman discussed the existing and proposed site and gave some background on the site. He discussed and referenced the emry and exit on the site. He stated that there was no landscaping added to the property previously and discussed the proposed changes. The applicant is adding significant landscaping islands throughout the area and increasing the green space. The existing trees will be preserved. Richman asked for the maximum score for drainage, parking and circulation, and transit categories, noting that the applicant was making improvements with each. Tarver asked if the parking plan considers the impacts on the rest of the AABC. Pregl responded that she'd asked Eylar to take a look at this. She stated that it appears there is more traffic on A, but didn't know if staff had actually made a physical visit. There was discussion of the traffic flow in section A, and the delivery truck impact. Public Comments There were no public comments. Commissioner Comments In response to a question posed by Tarver, Pregl stated that the road system criteria had been scored using Eylar's number. 6 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Tarver commented that the AABC had spent a lot of time describing the traffic problems to the Board. Richman responded that Environmental Health does not have a solid set of standards to run a PM10 calculation. Tarver stated that it's important to look at this site plan in terms of how it affects the rest of the AABC. Clarke pointed out that the intersection would eventually be moved down to the center of North 40. C. Road to Buck's LLC Commercial Growth Management Scoring/Allocation Summary of Request The applicant is requesting approval to convert a 4,800 sq. ft. area of an existing 30,500 sq. ft. private indoor riding arena into a commercial veterinary clinic for horses and to deed restrict a 3 bedroom unit inside of the arena building to AH income. occupancy, and price guidelines. Staff Presentation Filling in for Gabe Preston, Lance Clarke presented a summary of the application as outlined in the memo. Clarke re-iterated the process of scoring for the benefit of those that arrived late. ~ Criteria Staff Recommended Score Extended Score Water 2 2 Sewer 2 2 Storm Drainage 2 2 Fire Protection 2 2 Road System 2 2 Public & Private Transit Systems 0 0 Site Design 2 8 Resource Conservation 2 2 Parking & Circulation 1 2 Environmental Impacts 2 6 Visual Impacts 2 2 Affordable Housing 10 10 In summary, Clarke re-iterated that a score of 2 means that developmem can be handled by the existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general, or service improvements simply meet the standards of the Land Use Code. Staff does not feel there is a public transit system that adequately serves this development and the nearest bus stop is 2 miles from the structure. The applicant claims that the existing structure is set back from public views. ~-~ Staff believes that the riding arena and the surrounding improvemems are very visually intrusive to the area and no change is being proposed that would mitigate those impacts. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 The applicant is prnposing to house 100%ofthe employees generated on site. Staff has recommended a score of 10. The applicant has asserted that only three people will be employed and housed on site. The housing authority is concerned with the potential for more employees. If there is an approval, there will be a condition for an audit by the housing authority. Total The maximum score available is 61. The minimum threshold score is 36.6. Staff has recommended a total score of 40. Applicant Presentation Clausen stated that under the current zoning, which is AFR10, the vet clinic falls under a special use category. The present use is an accessory use to a residential dwelling. They believe providing for a vet clinic will have minimal impacts. The clinic will be housed within the existing barn facility and will have no additional impact. Traffic generation is based upon an anticipated trip visitation of 4 equine patients per day, and also has minimal impacts. The clinic will provide a mobile treatment, which would visit up to five equine patients per day. Clausen introduced the applicant, Para Fischer and Adolpho Games, the veterinarian. Clausen stated that this facility would be strictly equine. Referring to a map, Clausen pointed out the location of the site and described the site, as well as the existing facilities. He discussed the intent of the AFR10 zone district, noting Preston's concern regarding the appropriateness of the size of the facility. Clausen stated that the Land Use Code describes an agricultural operation as the use of land for soil cultivation, crop production and raising livestock. Although livestock isn't defined in the Land Use Code, the dictionary defines it as animals kept or raised for use or pleasure. Clausen suggested that equestrian activities are very much a part of livestock activities and therefor they are apart of agricultural operations. Clausen stated there is a tremendous need for this clinic in Pitkin County at a location that makes sense. Supporting a veterinary clinic of this sort also supports equestrian ownership in the valley pointing out that people that have horses also have open land that is kept open for horses. It does serve an important need for open space preservation. Clausen stated that in terms of Commercial use, this is a very small project and it can't compete against the public objectives that are normally associated with a project such as the Ski area. Clausen reviewed the scores. Regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, and fire protection, the applicant doesn't feel there is much they can do and therefore they've stipulated a score of 2. Regarding the road system, Clausen stated that the applicant has indicated that they are prepared to enhance the roads. The applicant is also prepared to place a stop sign at the entrance of Happy Day Road. The applicant is asking for a Score of 3. Regarding transit systems, Clausen pointed out that clearly people would not be bringing horses in by bus therefore it's inappropriate to recommend a score of 0. The applicant is requesting a score of 3. Regarding site design, Clausen referenced photographs of the facility. The applicant is asking for a score of 12. Regarding resource conservation, the applicant has stipUlated a score of 2. Regarding parking and circulation .... the applicant is asking for a Score of 6. Regarding environmental impacts, the applicant 8 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 is asking for a score of 9. Regarding visual impacts, the applicant is asking for a score of 3. The applicant appreciates the score of l0 for affordable housing. Clausen noted that there is potential for public concern regarding a covenant, which restricts commercial activities. The applicant is fully aware of the covenant and understands they need to work this out with the neighbors. Clausen stated that it is not the role of the county to enforce covenants. Gayle Embrey stated that she does understand the need for an equine/veterinary facility. She stated she doesn't understand why it wouldn't work in an existing veterinary location, for example. Clausen responded that the applicant needs the facility in order to help support the barn. From the applicant's standpoint, this is an essential way to continue to maintain the property. Pam Fisher stated that she had a rehabilitation facility for horses in Pennsylvania before she moved to Colorado. Her intent in moving to Colorado was to continue to be a sales representative for the therapy equipment that she uses on sport horses. The facility was built for her to continue to train horses for the Olympics and to breed sport horses. The interior design was based on her background of rehabilitating horses and was designed with safety first in mind. Dr. Games was impressed by the facility. Between Dr. Games' veterinary skills and Fishers' rehab skills they have a service to offer to the community that isn't available within 150 miles. Public Comments Dr. Maker, Alpine Animal Hospital, stated that he has done colic surgery as a post-graduate veterinarian. He suggested that the allocation of three employees is unrealistic and added that he isn't aware of anybody that's doing it with three. Dr. Maker agreed that there is a need for this type of facility. They've looked into this at their facility and believe that the delay would be in hiring the number of employees that would be needed. Dr. Maker suggested that it would be difficult to obtain a board-certified equine surgeon that would live on the premises. Regarding trips, he stated that he makes at least 10 trips a day for equine care. David Parker stated that his family was the original owners of the Happy Day Ranch and were responsible for the five-lot subdivision. He requested the opportunity to read the covenants into the record. Peter Martin responded that they are familiar with the covenants and although he may sympathize with Mr. Parker, it's not a P&Z issue. Parker continued stating that the barn is an eyesore, and the wildlife impacts are more significant than reflected in consideration of the size of the barn. Regarding the veterinary clinic, Parker stated that he has never seen a vet clinic that doesn't sell medicine, feed or possible special fencing. He stated that this is not a good project or a good place for this project. Martin noted for the record that Mr. Parker gave him a letter from Thomas Payne. noting his objection to this project. 9 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Parker poimed oat there were other objections regarding this proposal including Bindwith, his mother, Barbara Scotts. Tom Cassidy, Juniper Partnership, Sage Partnership. Steve Whipple commented that if you want m conserve land, you shouldn't subdivide it. Mr. Parker agreed with Whipple. Dr. Games stated that one reason that he was attracted to this facility is because of the infrastructure that it already has. The facility requires only basic changes to a small portion of the facility to result in the type of facility that he has always dreamed of. He stated that he believed he could acquire a team of people to live and work in the valley as well as investors. He stated that he was open to discussing any mitigation needs. In regards to trips, he stated that there might be 9 calls, however it could be organized that he would need to leave only once. Harv Hoff, neighbor to Pam Fisher and property boarder of 35 acres that is leased from Barbara Scott. stated that Pam does have gorgeous horses and admires her abilities. He stated that he's a lifetime local, bom and raised in this commumty. He stated that his concerns are strictly impact into the ranch location. He noted that there are kids that sled up and down the hill and ride their bikes throughout the day in the summer time. He suggested that a lot of improvement would need to be made. He stated that mostly everyone agrees they need a facility like this, however, he questioned the equality of the impacts in that location and suggested that the Board should look at the appropriateness of the location. In support of Para Fisher. Mike Lucas stated that he has been shoeing horses for her for about seven years. Lucas has been shoeing horses in the valley for about 18 years. He stated that he doesn't have a vested interest in this. He stated that her integrity and attention to detail is outstanding. He stated that the whole community is growing and there are many cars that speed along the roads, however, there aren't many horse trailers speeding. Martin pointed out that they aren't dealing with the merits of the application tonight, merely the scoring and asked that people focus on that issue, Michelle Ryan asked why they are scoring a facility that already exists. Martin responded that it has to go through the scoring process because it's an expanding commercial use and housing associated with it. Ryan asked if the scoring was a way to assess need. Clarke responded that it is not an assessment of need, it's an assessment of ranking based on criteria having to do with impact and design. Ryan stated that she has known Pam for four years and her attention to detail is standards above anybody that she knows in the horse industry. She stated that her facility is immaculate. She stated that she's hauled horses to this facility on several occasions and although the road does get snow packed, she hasn't had a problem accessing this facility. She stated that there is a need for this type of facility and with a few minor modifications this facility could be very accessible and well run as an equine surgery facility. 10 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Lucy Cerise neighbor to Happy Day Ranch noted the potential loss of the eagles that nest in that area due to enviro~mental impacts. Barbara Mackelnay stated that this valley desperately needs a surgical facility for colic horses. George Shiffrin pointed out that a commercial license was recently granted to the Aspen Valley Ranch not long ago, therefore a commercial facility is not impossible. He also noted that the need for this type of facility is crucial in this valley. Carol Dopkin noted that it would take a long time to build a similar facility and the need for the facility is now. She stated that this isn't a vet clinic, it's a surgical equine facility, and therefore the traffic would be lighter. Dopkin stated that she is in favor of this facility. Dr. Maker stated that there are only about 30 cases of colic on the Western Slope a year. Judith Hamley, stated that she lives in and owns a business in Pitkin County. She stated that the County should recognize that there would be revenues coming into Pitkin County from other counties. Tom Bailey, a resident of Pitkin County, noted his support for the facility. Heidi Havens noted her support of this facility. Susie Chaffey stated that she does not live here, however she is speaking on behalf of one of Pain's neighbors. Charley stated that it was a type of cruelty to not have a facility like this in a wealthy community such as Aspen. Charley commented that it would be a real shame to lose Para from this valley. Michelle Ryan asked if Para could operate a boarding facility under permitted HSt:S. Clarke responded that typically happens in Pitkin County, however, officially that is a commercial use and should not be allowed. Susan Obermeyer, stated that other than just saving animals, the surgical facility also brings the flavor of an equestrian valley. t' Tape cut off here) Commissioner Scoring Lance Clarke announced the results of the scoring. Applicant Score Previous Score Buttermilk 48 48.5 Pfister 49 49 Road to Bucks, LLC 45.75 45 Embrey stated that each of the applications have met the threshold, and she does not understand a system that forces the third one to drop off. Motion: Commissioner Charlie Tarver made a motion to recommend to the BOCC that the BOCC consider giving Pfister 4.65 allocations, Road to Bucks 3 and 35.35 for the Ski Company, and con§ider borrowing 3 from 2000: seconded by Commissioner Steve Whipple. 11 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, February 8 2000 Additional Discussion Martin stated that he understands the motion, however if the recommendation is limited to allowing the Ski Company to only use the 1999 allocations minus the exemptions, they can't build in a timely manner. Martin stated that they should try to obtain all of the housing they can and would like to borrow from the future year for the Ski Company also. Tarver accepted Martin's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Motion Continued: Commissioner Tarver amended his motion to recommend that the BOCC consider giving Pfister 4.65, Road to Buck's 3, and Ski Company 35.35 from 1999 and the maximum allowable from future years until all 97 are achieved; seconded by Steve Whipple. Commissioners Tarver, Whipple, Martin and Embrey voted unanimously in favor of the motion. For the benefit of the public, Martin explained that potentially all three of these projects could move forward to the next step, however it does not mean that they are approved. V. OTHER BUSINESS Future dates were discussed regarding the Road to Buck's and Pfister application. Charlie Tarver recommended that before next February, the GMQS scoring should be reviewed. Peter Martin requested that aerial photographs be provided as policy. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business before the board, the meeting was adjourned. 12