Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19780425 Special Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 1978 Mayor Standley called the special meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Councilmembers Johnston, Isaac, Van Ness, Behrendt, Parry, and Wishart present. Present from the staff were Karen Smith, Richard Grice, Joe Wells, Tom Jones, and City Manager Mahoney. Mayor Standley stated this is a special meeting to deal with growth management plan appeals for residential and the allocations for the lodging. Ms. Smith had put together a procedural memorandum. Each applicant will get ten minutes to make a presentation, and there will be 10 minute~ for Council to ask questions. Applicants will have the right to use this 20 minutes any way but that is an absolute time limit. Mayor Standley pointed Growth Management out that Council was not here to debate the growth management plan; it is a fait accompli applications ~ and has been adopted by ordinance. Applicants will deal with specific issues, if they feel they were treated unfairly by P & Z. The order will be (1) 500 Galena/925 Durant, (2) Six Studio Units, (3) Goodnouqh, (4) Van Horn, (5) Cooper & Original. The Council will take action after each appeal. Before this, Mayor Standley said the lodge allocations should be addressed. ~ Councilman Van Ness moved to have the planning office draft a resolution recognizing the Approval of Lodge allocation of the lodging appropriation of 44 units for Council's consideration on May 8; Applications for the allocation was recommended by the P & Z and is consistent with the growth management 1977 - 78 plan; seconded by Councilman Isaac. There were only two applicants for the lodging allocations; Aspen Inn with 36 units and Mountain Chalet with 8 units. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that these are more units than are available under the growth management quota. Ms. Smith told Council there are 36 units available for 1977 and 1978 allotment. Council has the authority to grant an additional 33 per cent of that number. This additional allotment must come out of the total for future years. Joe Wells told Council one of the advantages of giving these extra units is that both applications propose a significant number of employee units. There is a limited build out remaining in the lodge district, and there is a possibi~ there may be no competition in the future for units and it may be likely not to get employee housing. Both the lodge units and the employee units come out of future quotas. ~ The total unit allocations are 36 lodge units and 24 employee units for the Aspen Inn and 8 lodge and 8 employee units for the Mountain Chalet, for a total of 76 units. The extra units will come out of future allotments spread out over five years. All in favor, motion carried. 500 S. Galena/925 Durant Appeals for R~sidential allocations for Larry Yaw, representing this project, told Council this is a 29 unit project with 13 units.1977_78 low income housing. The project was specifically designed with commitments and provisions consistent with the growth management plan criteria to get 42 points. The P & Z rated ~00 ~ this at 38; one point less than necessary to qualify. Yaw stated he could demonstrate inconsistencies with the application and the scoring. The appeal is based on one member's scoring that was so inconsistent as to be blatant, and based on the overall scoring is inconsistent with the information and criteria presented. Yaw stated they contended that Baranko had to necessarily disregard the growth management criteria and submission to have arrived at his score; the average P & Z score was 43, Baranko's was 29. Yaw requested that Council award the additional 11 points asked for or to simpl~ strik~ Baranko's score from the record. Yaw pointed out this project was awarded a 1.8 for water service; they believe a 2.5 is deserved. There is a 6 inch main, test pressures exceeded 90 psi with a flow of 2,000 ~ gallons per minute. In engineering judgment, this is more than adequate service for the project. For sewer the project was rated a 1.4; Yaw stated a 2.5 is deserved. The sewer stated there was a bottle neck in Mill street line; this has been corrected. These projects only add .3 per cent to the overall capacity of the treatment facility. For strom drainage this project rated 2.8; 3.0 is deserved as all storm drainage will be handled on site and there are no foreseeable deficiencies. Aspen City Councl£ April 25, 1978 On fire protection the project was rated 2.2; Yaw is requesting 3.0. There are hydrants within 200 feet, and they have provided a new hydrant adjacent to one element of the project. The structures will be completely sprinkled and smoke detectors will be in each units. On parking they received 2.4 and are requesting 3.0 points. There are 29 cars required to be parked and only 7 will be within view of the streets; there will be a parking garage. In terms of public transportation, each of the pro~ects is within 350 feet of bus service. In terms of police protection they received 1.2 points and are requesting 1.5 based on the fact they are within 1 minute of the police station. Also the project has committed ~o hire and maintain a security system. On childcare facilities, the prcject received a 1.4 and because they plan to provide them on-site, Yaw is requesting 2.0. These facilities will be consistent with state day care facilities. Recycling got 1.6, they will provide this and exceed the level of service provided in that neighborhood and request 2.0. On handicapped they received 1.8; the project was specifically designed so that all but six of the units can be reached by wheelchair, they are requesting a 2.0 Yaw said in total they are requesting 5.9 additional points to the amount given, bringing the total up to 43.9. Ms. Smith told Council there was a comment from the water department stating these were somewhere between negligble and moderate impact, they felt 1.8 was not far~off. Sewer service - they feel that scoring is correct as there ~s a substantial overload on the Durant transmission line, so the Durant portion of the project was downgraded. Ms. Smith explained this was scored as if either of the sites had sufficient deficiencies, the total score was down graded. The transportation score is correct at 1 point as they are not directly on a bus line. The planning office had recommended 2 points on handicapped. Councilman Parry questioned the criteria used for judging police protection. Ms Smith said they had not received any response from the police department. Councilman Behrendt asked how the child care would be maintained. Ms. Smith said this would be tied down in the subdivision process. Mayor Standley asked if 925 Durant would be totally employee housing. Yaw said they ~r~ 12 studio units, 450 square feet, at $175 per month. At 500 S. Galena there will be a manager's unit to be rented at $175. Ms. Smith said this needed to be tied down through the housing authority. Councilman Behrendt moved in storm drainage to change the points to 3.0 giving an additional .2 and in handicapped raise the points to 2.0 giving an additional .2; seconded by Council- man Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved the points be raised on childcare facilities from a 1.4 to a 2.0; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved the recycling facility be changed from 1.6 to 2.0; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Ms. Smith stated the planning office awarded full points only if there were some outstanding feature about the project. Normal or adequate level of service received only 1 point. All in favor with the exception of Councilmembers Johnston and Wishart. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to change the energy average points to a 3.0 from a 2.8; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Behrendt asked why. Councilman Isaac pointed ou~ they are putting in solar heating, lining the windows to accept the sun light and are doing more than necessary. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley announced the scoring on this project has been modified to bring the total points to 39.6 without the bonus. Andre's/Six Studio Units David Hauter, representing Andre Ulrych, said this seems to be an ideal project, six studio units, close to downtown. The pro3ect is small scale and should have no impact on services. There are two existing homes on the site, so this will only be an increase of four units. This should be a pedestrian project in terms of location. Hauter pointed out that small projects are penalized in the categories of community support. These units will be large, low cost long term housing studios. Hauter stated there were inconsistencies in scoring. On sewer they were only given 1 point and request a total of 2, as the Mill street bottleneck problem has been corrected. On storm drainage they are requesting additional .2 points for a total of 3 as all the storm drainage will be handled on site. On roads they are requesting an additional .2 fo~ a total of 3 as the project is located within 3 blocks of downtown; there is no foreseeable problems with the roads and there is a sufficient alley. Under public transportation, this project ~s within half mile of ski hills, downtown, Rio Grande parking, and they are requesting an additional .2 for a total of 2. Under police protection, Hauter pointed out this project is three blocks from the police and fire station and the response time is 30 second to one minute. This project is small and connot provide space for a childcare facility on site. On bicycle paths this project should rate 2 points; it is very compatible to bicycles and living there would not require an automobile. On Recycling, the pro3ect will have separate containers for glass, aluminium, organic material. Hauter requested .8 points for a total of 2.0. In terms of handicapped, they request a scoring of .2 additional to be consistent. The commercial support proximity is covered on the location. This is a totally pedestrian oriented project and should receive an additional .4 points. Hauter said they did not feel four units will impact the existing system. Ulrych pointed ou~ these are all garden level units. Councilman Behrendt moved that the applicant receive 1 point for sewer for a total of 2 points, receive an additional .2 for storm draina.~and an additional .4 on commercial support proximity; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to award 3 points on roads instead of 2.8 for an additional .2; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Special Meeting Aspen City Counci± aprz± zD, Councilman Parry moved that for bicycle paths 1 additional point be awarded as anything the City like this actually a bicycle path. Motion DIED for lack of a second. Councilman Wishart moved to add .2 for handicapped design features; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to add .4 to police protection to bring it up to 2.0 points; seconded by Councilman Parry. Everyone opposed. Motion NOT carried. The Ulrych - Six Studio apartments is now recorded at 38.8 points. Goodnough Apartments - Vivian Goodnough entered into the record a letter from their attorney Leonard Oates. The Goodnough project, consisting of 9 units was awarded 35.4 points. Ms. Goodnough entered a written challenge to the scoring by the P & Z. Ms. Goodnough challenged the assessment of points under 24.10-4, relating to moderate and middle income housing. At the presentation, the Goodnoughs had stated that the three top story units would be condominium units under deed restriction to local owners. By this fact, they feel they are entitled to an additional 3 points. Six units will be rented in the moderate income range of $300-$450 per month. Additionally, one unit will be rented at a substantially lower rate for a caretaker. Plus the three top story units which will be sold, the total housing score should be 4 points. On roads, they feel they are a much less crowded area than the other project, and are not situated on a hill. They have few units. This project is a definite auto disincentive due to its proximity to downtown. There are roads on three sides of the project. They ought to get full points for roads. On energy, they will have individual electric heat, and it will also have a passive solar, the fire places are all glass doors, 90 per cent of the windows face south. Snow build up will further insulate the units. On police protection, they received a 1 and Ms. Goodnough compared scores on other projects. Ms. Goodnough pointed out this project is within 5 blOCks of the police station, and Chief Hershey said the project could easily be handled by the existing force. Call time would be 2 minutes, the project is exposed on three sides and well-lighted. There will also be a caretaker living there. Ms~ Goodnough stated they feel childcare facilities in the area are adequate. They are closer to the bike paths than anyone else and they received a 1.2. They are one and a half blocks from City Market. On recycling, they were marked 2 by the planning office and received a 1.6. Ms. Goodnough asked for a .4 there, On handicapped, they stated theyi would provide ramps, if necessary. On commercial Support facilities, they are asking for total 2.0, an addition of .2 points because they are very close to the commercial district and all the roads.are very flat, and there is a bus stop on the corner. Ms. Goodnough objected to the planning and zoning commission evaluating the projects 500 Galena and 925 Durant as one. The objection is that these are two separate and distinct project separated by one-quarter mile distance. This is to th~ detriment of small projects. The planning office had interpreted this in order to allow employee housing. Ms. Goodnough said ~ interpretation of the ordinance in no way allows split projects. The effect of the position taken by the P & Z wi~t be to enhance larger undev- eloped which maybe placed in the free market category thereby depressing the price of smaller properties. This will create an anti-competitive situation. Councilman Behrendt asked about the points for sewer. Ms. Smith stated they had received a very negative comment from Heiko Kuhn, as the project feeds into the Durant line which is very over loaded. Jim Markalunas recommended this as moderate impact on the water system. As far as the housing, Ms. Smith said this application consisted of six moderate income units before the deadline. Councilman Parry moved to change the commercial support proximity from 1.8 to 2.0, raisingI it .2 points, recycling upped~by .4 to a 2.0; bicycle paths increased by .4 to a 1.6; increase roads by .3 and energy by a .5; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Wishart and Johnston. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to raise the housing from 10 to 14. Motion died for a lack of second. Mayor Standley closed the discussion on the Goodnough apartments with a total amended points to 37.2 Van Horn. Russ Pielstick, representing Van Horn, told Council is project is only land subdivision, and land subdivision does not fit into the review as well as other. They have been trying to bring about this subdivision since 1972, working with sewer and water, i! Pielstick explained they would have an 8 inch water line which would close the loop on Riverside and upgrade the system, and that was what Markalunas recommended. On sewer, they have been working with the engineers, but they were down graded on points because thel planning office thought they would need lifting stations because of the elevations. Pielstick explained that for storm drainage the parking and access roads would be gravel or perforated paving; the foundations will be required to have perforated pipe collection so that the pipes flow into a dry well. Fire protection was marked down because in inadequate water pressure, but they have an 8 inch looped line coming from a 12 inah main. For parking design, all they can do is require all owners to have adequate parking. They are not designing the sites so they cannot designate where the parking will be. With roads there is a problem; however, they worked out an easement through Callahan subdivision to the highway. In a land subdivision, Pielstick stated he did not know what to do to gather points. Pielstick stated for transportation they are beyond the 525 feet from a bus route. The police protection, with response time and this subdivision with minimal effect, it should not affect the existing level of service. Childcare - Pielstick has broken down the census in terms of age groups and they would expect to have one child under the age of 5 in the subdivision, and they felt it would be excessive to have childcare facilities. ~pecla± Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 1978 Pielstick told Council the bicycle path runs right through the bottom of the site, and they should have gotten maximum points for this. Recycling in dealing only with a land subdivision, it is difficult to figure out what they can do in this category. In handi- capped design features, all the sites are at grade and they should have gotten the maxi- mum. In housing, Pielstick stated they were judged very fairly. They are providing a covenant restriction which says there must be a low cost apartment in each unit. Pielstick reiterated the fact this was a land subdivision gave them some difficulties because they do not have the number of parameters to deal with in design in order to bring about the required point total. Pielstick suggested that in the future the land subdivi- sion should be evaluated on a different schedule. Ms. Smith told Council on sewer the planning office had gotten the comment of substantial impact because of the possibility of lifting stations. On water, they got the comment of moderate impact because the City may have to construct the water line. Tom Jones noted the initial application did not make the storm drainage arrangements clear, that there would be penetration into dry wells. Councilman Wishart said that perhaps land subdivi- sions should be handled differently. Ms. Smith said the P & Z agreed this should be given consideration in future ordinance amendments. This was considered originally when the ordinance was drafted, but it was thought that such things as recycling, parking, solar energy could be shown and deed covenanted along with the sale of the lots. Councilman Behrendt moved to recommend raising water from 2.4 to 3.0, sewer ought to be awarded 2.0 points (increase .6) increase under fire protection .4 points to 2.0 and increase bicycle paths .8 to 2.0 points; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to give the benefit of doubt and raise childcare to 1.0, adding additional .2; raise recycling .2 to 1.0, and raise handicapped to 1.0, up .2; seconded by Councilman WiShart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley stated the Van Horn application has been modified to 34.0 Cooper & Original - Chuck Brandt, representing Cooper & Original, told Council this project is within 135 feet of City Market, is on a bus line, within 3 blocks Of the center of town, it is as near police and fire as any of the appliCants, it is the only applica- tion that includes a solar system, childcare facilities are in the vicinity. Brandt stated those general points should give rise to consideration of the scoring by P & Z. Brandt stated his client objected to the treatment of two separate projects as one. Mayor Standley stated discussion of other projects is not an appropriate subject. Brandt should keep his comments to his projeCt. The appeal is on the basis of the application. Brandt said this would be a discussion of the system, and this is a comparative system in that there is a ranking for the points. Brandt stated the treatment of two buildings as one project, that application should stand or fall on its individual merits, treating the employee housing project and the free market project as two separate projects. In terms of competition aspect, the"R/MF district is at a disadvantage when the implementation ordinance is applied. The high price real estate prices in R/MF preclude true employee housing. The developer cannot afford to provide employee housing along the criteria addressed. Brandt stated the fact that these employee units can be sold off in a few years ought to be considered. The R/MF zone is for intensive housing for employees, and there is a transfer of density from the R/MF area to lodge area by two of the applications. This deprives the applicant who owns a single parcel of land of adequately competing. This can be avoided by insist- ing that multi-family dwelling in the lodge district that preclude R/MF development be subject to six month rental restriction. Councilman Parry questioned the scoring on water and sewer as this project is in the same areas as other projects. Ms. Smith stated initially Heiko Kuhn commented this project would have substantial sewer impact because of the Mill street bottleneck, which has been taken care of. This project should receive the 2 points. On water service, the comment was there is nominal pipe and the existing main is seriously overloaded. Tom Jones said the site is presently lower than the street. Some garden level units are proposed and he could foresee a possible problem with water and a flooding problem. Councilman Behrendt moved to raise the points for sewer service by .8 to 2.0; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out the planning office did not allow any points for hous- ing; there are two points on the tally sheet. Ms. Smith stated there was no~ employee housing indicated on the application. The majority of P & Z scored this at no points. Councilwoman Johnston moved to lower the housing by 2 points; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved that the water service by raised by .4 and the fire protection be raised by 1 point; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Councilwoman JOhnston pointed out that upgraded the water system was not part of the original application. MaYor Standley said this constitutes an amendment, it cannot be considered, the motion is inappropriate. Councilman Parry moved to raise the commercial support proximity .2 to 2.0 points and to raise energy .2 to 3.0 points; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Transportation modification. Council addressed all the applications on this because the criteria is very specific; 2 poin~on existing route, 1 point within walking distance (520 feet), and 0 for outside established service area. Top of Mill is 700 feet from service, but is not appealing so it cannot be amended. 500 S. Galena, 925 Durant got 1 point shOuld stay as is. Ulrych stayed the same; Goodnough stayed the same; Cooper & Original was raised from 1.8 to 2.0; Van Horn was lowered from 1 point to 0 points. Special Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 1978 Mayor Standley stated 500 Galena/925 Durant is not 39.6 which now qualifies it for the growth management plan. P & Z's recommendation is that Council apply the 20 per cent bonus to allow up to 65 residential units. There are only three projects over 39 qualify-i! ing points. Without the bonus 500 Galena/925 Durant qUalify by right for 16 units, and if Council grants the 20 per cent quota bonus that would allow 65 units. ~ouncilw0manI Johnston said the quota for residential is 52; anything built on a single family dwelling lot counts toward that quota. Councilwoman Johnston asked if any count had been taken of building permits to be subtracted. Ms. Smith said this was taken for 1977 and subtracted from the quota. Ms. Smith told Council the ordinance allows Council to grant in excess of the maximum number of dwelling units as much as 20 per cent, provided that any such excess development be offset by reduction in successive years, over the next four years. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out this quota is established by percentage, and asked if this percentage of growth quota had been reduced by the number of single family units already done. Ms. Smith stated the quota annually of 39 was not reduced by anything otheri! than the actual build out in any year. They do not know what has happened in 1978 yet. Councilman Behrendt moved to table the considerations of the awarding of bonus allocations until May 8 Council meeting, and have the planning office and city attorney bring a clarification to Council to consider at that time the awarding of the bonus units; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to instruct the planning office to draft a resolution approving Top of Mill and Park Central West for 1977-78 growth management allocations; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S.~auter, City Clerk