Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860318 RECORD-OF- PROCIlBDIlIGS REGULAR -lIBft:I1IG ----PIAlftUIIG -MII)-ZOR-11IG" -CmUflSSYOIIl--n-wARCR--:l8-. --1986 Chai rman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5: 03 P.M. with Commissioners Mari Peyton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Jim Colombo, Al Blomquist, and David white (arrived late) present. COIIM:ISS-I-mlBltS. COIIIIZIrfS Hunt said he would like to request the Planning Office to develop a resolution encouraging City Council to do a study on the aerobus as a form of transportation. Blomquist suggested including RFTA. Tom Baker, planner, said he had talked with the consultants and they expressed interest in looking over each other shoulders to get 2 sides of the same picture. MOtionl Hunt moved to direct the Planning Office to come up with a Resolution to City Council encouraging a study of the aerobus as a form of transportation; Blomquist seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Hunt commented that the Aspen Grove building had added a restaurant to the second floor. The restaurant has no service access through the alley, the only access being the front stairway. Hunt said this causes delivery trucks to double park in the street or at the corner of the mall. Hunt thought the use tables should be modified to indicate that restaurants in the CC zone must have direct access to the alley or an approved service/utility access. Motion: Hunt moved to direct the Planning Office to come up with a code or use table change, at their earliest capability, addressing restaurants in the CC zone having direct alley or approved service/utility access; Blomquist seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson commented that there were people, calling themselves the Roaring Fork Railroad Company, interested in working with Rio Grande Railroad to restablish train service between Aspen and Denver. They will be meeting wi th City Council, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission next week to discuss their intents. Anderson asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to participate in those study sessions, however, he would prefer to have a special presentation for this I RBeORD-or-- PROCRlmIllGS REGULAR -lIBft:Im;--- -PLAJII!IYRG---MII)-~:rBG-CmIlUSS-IOlI----- MIlCH -1-a.--l986 Commission. Blomquist asked if it could be combined with the staff work being done on transportation and downtown land use. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said they did not have anything prepared at this time. The Commission agreed to hold a special session to discuss the Roaring Fork Railroad Company on March 25, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. PLAlO1:rBG--oWICB --cmuunr.rs Richman said they needed to schedule a work session for April I, 1986 to review a draft Historic Preservation Element. Hopefully it could be recommended to Council, at that time, for endorsement. The Commission agreed. Richman commented that he had submitted a letter to the represen- tatives of the 601 Aspen St. Residential GMP project. As a result of City Council's determination regarding Ordinance 186-2 .Employee Housing Code Amendments. it is appropriate for that application to be reviewed. The applicant has been given 2 weeks to submit a clarified application. Anderson read a letter from Spencer Schiffer concerning condition 120 of the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Application, contesting the fact that this Commission moved that the condition had been met. MYhu:o;.I!:S March -1-):- .-l9861 Hunt moved to table approval of the minutes of March II, 1986; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 1i1'l"l'liE-lULli- BASE-.R.....vtd,OPlllllft' -usoL-u'.l':IOlI Secti-orr-3r-Condition---t:t: Richman asked for comments on the skier drop-off condition. Hunt said he thought this was the fatal flaw of the enitre project. The area is not properly designed. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, said his concern related to 3 separate curb cuts on Durant St., two of which are very close together causing a potential for conflict in the street at that point. The applicants were concerned that if the two curb cuts were combined you end up with an additional conflict within the property. Hammond said that would be a much lower speed conflict 2 RECOItJ) or-- PROCXBDIRG-S REGOLAR-1IBftllIG--- -PLAJII!IYIIG--:AlO)--Z-ORnTG---ct)Ulss-IOR- - --IfAItCIt-"l1J-;-ff86 and the impacts relative to the street were lessened. Hammond said he remained unconvinced that 3 curb cuts were better than 2 cuts. Mr. Kane sa id the def ined landscape island between the skier drop-off and the hotel drop-off was what created the 3 curb cuts. Mr. Kane said it could be redesigned. Richman said he was not suggesting any change to the condition. The condition, as it reads, provides for the opportunity of this type of negotiation to continue. Richman did think it was important for Mr. Hammond's memorandum dated March 3, 1986, dealing with the question of parking and circulation, to be noted. Hunt said the design he had seen showed extensions on each side of the parallel parking out in to the right of way, which would be impossible for street clearing. Hunt had a problem with the utilization of the right of way and what it wouls do to the flow of traffic on Durant Ave., given there would be higher numbers utilizing that area. Hunt said he did not think it was appropriate to forward this on to Council because it would not be what the Commission thought it had approved. White agreed. Blomquist remarked that the City Engineer has control of curb cuts, therefore, details beyond what has been generated here belong to the Ci ty Engineer. Blomquist thought the condition should remain as written. Conditron-t-2~ White asked if the applicant had to go before any other Boards or Commissions for approval of this condition. The wording was not very specific as to what would be done, only that it would be done. Richman said the applicant had committed to improvements. Mr. Forsch remarked that the improvements would be in conjunction with either the Special Improvement District or the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. White asked if the city had an adopted plan. Blomquist replied yes. White then asked if that plan should not be included as part of this condition. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said the adopted plan could be changed by the Improvement District or any number of others and they did not want to be tied to something they could not maintain. Conditiun~3~ There were no comments. Condition --<<~ Richman said he thought this condition met with all of the items discussed and that a plan had been submitted. Hunt asked if this included the allowance for adding some of the lost park space in another location, as necessary? Richman said to 3 RECORD -or----t>ROCIlBDIIIGS REGOLAR-IIBB'.r11lG"n_--PLAlftURG AlIJI:r ZOlIING- CODl-SSI0lI-nllARC!t"-J;B-;---1986 the best of his knowledge the cul-de-sac only uses the area on the 30 foot easement, therefore, it would not be taking any park space away. Hunt then asked if the plan worked without taking some of that park space. Mr. Forsch replied the cul-de-sac would be to the east of the park space. Mr. Forsch added that park space would only be used for an extra large truck that might need the extra space to back out of the service dock. Hunt asked if ambulance access would also be through the park space. Mr. Forsch replied yes. Conditimr--t5-: There were no comments. Conditt-on---ff-: Richman said he thought the word "graded" in the second sentence should be changed to read "defined" if acceptable to the Commission. Richman also commented that the last sentence of the condition had not been discussed. The issue came across with the recently adopted Trails Master Plan which shows a nordic trail crossing the ski area on the Little Nell run. Richman said he had discussed the matter with the planners involved in the master plan and with the Aspen Nordic Council and the language of the last sentence was what was derived from those conversations. The applicant was concerned that the trail in no way interfer with the ability for alpine skiing. The Planning Office wants to be certain that alpine skiing would not prohibit nordic skiing. Hunt asked if the nordic trail followed a contour. Richman replied the trail was about at the 8100 level and follows a contour. Hunt asked if there would be a horizontal hump or if the grade would just be traversed. Mr. Forsch responded the nordic skiers would traverse the grade. Richman said language would probably be added to the end of the condition "provided that the trail is designed to not interfer with the alpine skiing". Mr. Forsch said the trail could not be a set track across the slope and thought there should be appropriate signage on the nordic trails, warning of uphill skiers etc. White thought the trail easement should be the Nordic Council's in the winter and the City's in the summer and questioned the legality of that possibility. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said theoretically the City was going to assume responsibility and ownership of the trail system, therefore, the easement should be the City's. Richman proposed the following language at the close of the condi tion; "provided that the trail design and maintenance will 4 RBCORD--oF- PROCIlBDllIGS RB6ULAR-IIBftI-RG-- -PLMIII11fG---A1IIn ZOlIIRG--cmuuSSIOlI-- _ARCH -]:-8-;--1986 not interfer with needs of the alpine skiing area". The Commission agreed. Conditi-on-t71 Hunt said he did not consider the trench for the gondola a very attractive package and would like to see some latitude in the language of the condition for the applicant to investigate other alternatives. Mr. Forsch said they would be receptive to the language. Blomquist said he understood the trench was critical and very important to the water storage capability of the site. Blomquist thought to better address Hunt's comments the amendment should be made in the first sentence, amending it to read: "the applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the proposed gondola terminal building and a landscape plan to City Council". Blomquist said his assumption of a little landscaping around the trench, plus fencing, would create a mountainside environment and would also allow the applicant to maintain their drainage problem solution. Peyton asked how long the trench would be. Mr. Kane replied approximately 90 feet. The Commission agreed to amend the condition, adding the wording "and a landscape plan" to the first sentence of condition '7. Condrtiunu-t-8: Blomquist said he thought the last sentence of the condition should at the least say the "revegitation shall exceed Forest Service standards" and he questioned if the sentence should even be included in the condition. Richman commented that the previous sentence addressed the concerns dealing with the hotel portion of the landscaping. Condition--1-!!: Hunt questioned if Hunter St. should not be included in this condition. Richman replied no, there is no requirement for Hunter St. Contti-ti-on--t-Ie-: Mr. For sch asked that they be allowed to use either that site or an approximate location within a reasonable distance. Richman said he would not have a problem with that amendment. Colombo said if the applicant is given that kind of flexibility shouldn't there be something that guarantees the number of parking spaces. Richman said 30 spaces were required and that could be included in this condition. Tygre said she thought there should also be a definition as to what approximate is. The Commission agreed to a 300 foot radius proximity. Conditimr-'ll-: Hunt suggested the word "recommendations" in the first sentence be changed to "directives, guidelines or requirem- 5 RECORDuOF PROCIlBDllIGS RBGULAR1IBft:IIIG----pJ;AlftIJJ:lIG Alft) --ZORllIG --caDI SSIOlI -MARCIIuj;8-;- -:1986 ents". Anderson said he thought that was covered in the current wording. Conditiurr-t-12~ Mr. Forsch said the language of this condition was very scary. The applicant has agreed, and continues to agree, to participate in any studies of geologic hazard and mud flows on Aspen Mountain. But, up to this point they have been under the impression that mitigation measures on Little Nell was what was being considered. Now the applicant is being asked to mitigate those measures on all of Aspen Mountain, which is something they are unable and unwilling to do. Richman said the language of the condition says paTticl~l~. Mr. Forsch said they were certainly willing to participate but were concerned that the participation in the mitigation was an open ended commitment that is virtually impossible for the applicant to make. Richman said he thought it was crucial, if a major development is allowed at the base area of Aspen Mountain, that the City feel comfortable that they have a participant/partner in the mitigation of the geologic hazards, whose extent at this point is unsure. It is crucial, given the fact that the Aspen Skiing Company is the major owner by leasehold under interest in the upslope areas, that the Ci ty have their participation and partnership. Mr. Kaufman said they were not saying they would not participate in taking on any mitigation aspect that developed because of the work at Little Nell or the hotel. Mr. Kaufman thought it became unfair with the next step, saying they have to have an unlimited partici- pation in areas on the mountain that have no impact on the Little Nell area but rather on other parts of the mountain. The applicant was willing to commit to participation in the studies but not to participation that has absolutely nothing to do with the Little Nell site or project. Blomquist thought the condition should remain as written because it does not specify the degree of participation. This project is viewed as an overall upslope area responsibility, which Blomquist felt was legitimate, given the fact that the project is built as the gateway to the mountain. Blomquist felt it was not an unreasonable requirement. Mr. Forsch agreed and said they would be willing to participate. Mr. Richman said studies of the hazard would result in a formula of participation. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, said Mr. Kaufman's statement would be true if the Little Nell project stood alone, however, this applicant 6 "o~ RBeORD-OF-- PItOCI!lIlDIIIGS REGOLAR-DBTllIG ----PLARRIIIG Alft)ZORIlIG COU:rss-r-mr----MRCB ]:8-;- 1986 owns or controls a significant portion of the upslope areas of the mountain. Mr. Hammond said that was the basis of his concern. Conditt-orr--tl-3-: Richman said he would like to add the language "consistant with Ray Cassin's report" to the condition. Hunt asked who was responsible for reconstructing the road "at the applicant's request" as stated in the condition. Richman replied that it should read "at the applicant's ~x",en5e". Blomquist said the condition construes the Aspen Mountain road as a county road within the city limits. Blomquist asked if it should not be a city street or trail since it is within the city limits. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, replied there were provisions in the Colorado statutes that provide for county roads in municip- alities. Those situations are where the county road came in to existance not as a dedicated right of way but as a piece of property that was conveyed fee simple to the county. When the municipality annexed there was no consideration paid to having the county transfer title to the City. Mr. Hammond agreed and said this particular road had been maintained by the County on their inventory through the project as it is in its present location. Blomquist asked if it would not be proper to ask that a platt be filed on all of the property encompassed within this project. Blomquist did not feel the road should be a county road because it is within the City limits. He suggested a manner to clean this up would be to file a recorded platt. Anderson asked how much of the road Blomquist was proposing to be included. Mr. Blomquist said that would have to be studied as part of the platting process. Anderson said the SPA boundry was what should be platted, Richman added that the Aspen Mountain road was no where near the SPA boundry. Richman said he felt what Blomquist was requesting was not in the purview of this applicantion. Blomquist said in the platting process this applicant could establish title to the Aspen Mountain road, and it is within the City limits. Blomquist did not know a more appropriate time to clarify this matter. White commented that the applicant would be regrading the hillside which would include a plan. Anderson replied that the regrading plan would be part of the Aspen Mountain Master Plan rather than the Little Nell base redevelopment. Richman said it would be in this Commission's purview in 8040 Greenline review. 7 RECORD OF PllOC!:I!lDIRG8 RBGOIiAlt" DB'.rIIIIG------PLAJlIURG Alft) ZORllIG-CODYSSroa- MItCH -l1t;--:1986 lIotion1 Blomquist moved that condition 113 be replaced and require that the area be platted and that all of the open space be declared for publ ic open space purpose for alpine skiing in winter and pristene meadows in summer; White seconded. DtscU-s-sTom Mr. Kaufman commented that this requirement entailed more than had ever been discussed. Mr. Kaufman thought the ownership of the road was something that was appropriate for discussion between the City and Pitkin County. Platting has nothing to do with the ownership question, this is an SPA with a limited boundry and platting has nothing to do with the SPA boundry. Mr. Kaufman said he did not think this was the appropriate time or place for this requirement and ask the Commission to accept Condition 113 as written. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said in addition to requiring something of the applicant a sub paragraph directed toward the City staff, with regard to the aquisition of the county road, may be appropri- ate. Richman said he would rather see that as a separate section, rather than a condition. Mr. Taddune said when it came time for City Council to enter into an agreement they will require that the precise plan identify any of the land use considerations and the agreement would limit the applicant to a development they were approving in the process. Whether or not the road was part of that Mr. Taddune was unsure. Mr. Kaufman commented that the road did not fall in to any of the areas being designated SPA, therefore, he did not see why it would be appropriate to include platting of an area not part of the SPA review. Richman said the issue came about as an 8040 Greenline review. White said his concern was that the mountain was going to be changed, which will include the road, and he wants to be sure that the road remains the same kind of road that exists. Mr. Kane said platting has to do with ownership and fairly delineating survey boundrys between property owners. This is an extensive and expensive process. It is provided for in the city code where subdivision of land or change of ownership is part of an applic- ation. That is not happening here, there is no change of ownership, therefore, the code does not require subdivision platting. In 8 RECORD OF PROCBBDllIGS IlBGUIiAlt-DB'l'I~ PLAIUlIJIG--AlID JOIIllIG COIIMISSroa---- MIlCH 18. -:1986 the technical site plan every issue raised by Mr. Blomquist is being addressed, it is just not being called a platt. White withdrew his second. Blomquist's motion dies for lack of a second. Anderson suggested accepting condition 113, changing the word "request", in the second sentence, to "expense" and adding "consistant with Ray Cassin Assoc. report" to the end of the condi tion. C"Orrditimr-t-i4: Mr. Kaufman commented that there was an understa- nding with the Planning Office that the actual deed restriction would not take place until the hotel goes on line. Conditron-~:t5~ There were no comments or questions. Conditi-on--t-i6-~ There were no comments or questions. Conditiun-tI~ Anderson said it was his recolection that all of the electrical powerlines to the east side of Galena St. would be underground as part of this application. Mr. Kane said he thought there had been a misunderstanding about who would be responsible for this. The undergrounding from the pole in the middle of Dean St. to the Continental was to be accomplished when the Continental chose to install underground electric for their building. The assumption now is that they will not want to do that until their building has been rebuilt because of the big expense. Mr. Kane said their understanding was that it would remain overhead until the Continental made a decision, or the Aspen Mountain Lodge project was resolved. Anderson said the Ski Co. had committed to work from the east side of Galena toward the project. Mr. Kane said Holy Cross Electric had done extensive undergrounding in the area and had differed this line because of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. It will be undergrounded through the street improvement district or made a condi tion of the application. Mr. Kane said it was their understanding it would be undergrounded through the street improvement district. Hunt said it was his understanding this would be undergrounded by the time this project was complete. Mr. Kaufman said the misund- erstanding took place in that it was agreed that it would be undergrounded but the other portions would have to be tied in. This appl icant can not be responsible for a proj ect that may 9 RECORD OF PRocr;ZDllIGS REGULAR DB'.rIJIG -_n"Pli1UftllBG- Alft) JOIIllIG COUISSrolf MARCIl 18. 1986 never get built. Mr. Forsch said their commitment was to underg- round everything on their site at such time as the Aspen Mountain Lodge was buil t. Hunt said the utilities east of the pole on Galena St. should be underground by the end of this project. Motiom White moved that all electrical wires on the project site to the pole east of Galena St. will be placed underground by the applicant; Peyton seconded. Dtscussi~m Colombo suggested amending the motion to say "by the time the proj ect comes on line". Mr. For sch suggested doing it under the same terms and conditions as the paving, Condition 15. Richman suggested combining the language with Condition 15. Peyton commented that Condition 15 was complicated, as it exists. White thought Condition 117 should be kept separate. White added the major electrical work would be done when the gondola and hotel were put in and the utility undergrounding could be done at the same time. All in favor; motion carried. eond itiorrs----tTa-;-t-]:9-.-t-21r;-t-2j;-;~_2_h questions. There were no comments or Cvmlltiurr-t-23-: Richman said the applicant had requested additional language stating "in the event the growth allocations for the project in the "C" zone shall expire the boundry shall revert to its prior configuration". Richman thought that was an important clarification. Anderson asked for public comment. Hans Gramiger said there may be a zoning map mistake, thinking the CC SPA zone was only intended to cover the north side of the lot, therefore there is a possibility that there is only 22,000 sq.ft. of CC zoning. Even the site that has been depicted is short 2,424 sq.ft. because the applicants calculation does not correspond to the designation of the zoning map. Mr. Gramiger said he did not think the Commission had fulfilled the charge they were responsible for in the areas of open space, FAR, parking, grading for ski lifts when it should be for a hotel, the drop-off area, ski lift operation plan, employee housing, no views of public strets, no SPA boundry change is warranted into the "C" zone, the GMP quota, conditional 10 RECORD OF PROCXBDIJlGS RBGULAlt"1IBBTllIG ----PLARRllIG Alft) JOJlIJIG COUISSIOlI- MRCR 1-8-.ff86 use for the hotel, and it should be conditioned in approval that the parcel can never be severed into one or more other parcels. Mr. Gramiger proposed that this Commission had recommended, in 1975, public aqusition of critical properties in which the Aspen Ski Company property was listed. Again, in 1985, the Commission expressed concern that the SPA designation should have language that not only the developer has the perogative to ask for variations from the underlying zone but that also the City should have the same right. Mr. Gramiger said the Commission had completely neglected the citizen of Aspen in green space and parking. Anderson entered a letter from Spencer Shiffer in to the record stating they do not believe Condition 120, regarding the boundry adjacent to the Tippler, had been resolved. Mr. Kaufman said the applicant had committed that this particular application does not intend to include the Tippler deck. Hunt commented that if that piece of property came in to the applicant's posession he thought it should be incl uded, by amendment to the SPA. Hunt wanted language in the conditions reflecting this. Richman suggested language. White said he would like to see a new condition to the effect that the property would not be split up. Anderson commented that the property could not be split up without going through a subdivision process, under any ownership. Blomquist said the technical way to achieve White's concern was to have the property platted as a lot, with deed restrictions through the platt. Richman said he did not see what would be accomplished by prohib- iting the subdivision, when subdivision is something this Commission would have to review. Anderson said this application was an SPA Precise Plan and platting was not part of this procedure. MuLlun: COlombo moved to approve Resolution 186-3, subject to amendments made at this meeting on March 18, 1986, authorizing the Chairman to sign off on the amendments; Tygre seconded. DI-sCtrS5Tum Peyton said she would like to have the minority opinion also included in the motion. It was the opinion that should be a separate motion. Hunt said he would vote against this approval II RECORD OF PItOCI!lBDllIGS RBGOLAR DZTIJIG PLAIftIllIG AJID JOlIIJIG OODISSIOlI MARCIl 18. ff86 for the primary reason of the skier parking. Hunt said he was, however, in favor of the hotel project and the gondola. Whi te commented that he supported the hotel proj ect. However, he had some major questions. White said he had for a long time believed in the concept of a trade off in the SPA. Parking is totally inadequate, believing there should be at least 36 more spaces, disappointment in the transit studies and their conclusions not taking into acount the Aspen Mountain Master Plan or the gondola, the "grand" entrance to the City was not addressed, and circulation has not been properly addressed. White said he did not think the Commission had done their job. Anderson asked Blomquist Colombo Tygre Hunt Peyton White Anderson Hunt and Peyton for a roll aye aye aye no no aye aye opposed; call vote: all others in favor; motion carried. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said there were two ways to handle the minority opinion. Any person who voted in the minority has the right to submit a report to City Council stating why they think the proposal should be rejected. However, that can be submitted independently or it can be agreed as a Commission that if members do want to submit a minority report that it be apended to the majority report so that City Council can consider the majority comments at the same time it considers the minority. Mr. Taddune thought the later was the best practice. Motiom Hunt moved to apend the minority report to Resolution '86-3; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. E-ImLIC IIUlRIlIG ou..dY PAItIt PROJBCf RBSIDIlftIAL GNP SCORIJIG SBSSIOlI Doug Allen, attorney for the 601 Aspen St. project, said they understood that all applications were continued from January 28, 12 REGULAR- MBE'l'IJIG RECORD OF PItOCI!lBDIlIGS PLAlIIIIlIG Alft) JOJIIlIG OODISSIOlI "WCH 18. 1986 1986 to March 18, 1986. He had a letter reinstating their application subject to certain conditions and they presently have an appeal pending before the Board of Adjustment. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, asked what the position of the applicant was with regard to the appeal before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Allen replied they would not have an answer until the next day, giving them enough time to study the letter just received from the Planning Office. Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sunny Park project. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said the Planning Office's suggested scoring was just under the minimum threshold. By scoring the project just under the threshold the whole viability of the project will be killed, if the Commission agrees. Mr. Kaufman thought the Planning Office did not carefully examine the scoring criteria and recommendations from Jay Hammond, City Engineer. Mr. Kaufman said if they had not ignored the recommen- dations and criteria the project would have clearly met the threshold. Mr. Kaufman said there needed to be a degree in continuity in scoring, in determining the type of projects the communi ty would like to see built. Whether a project meets the threshold should not be determined by who the planners are that score the project, or what composite the Planning Office is at the time. A projects desirability needs to meet the test of time, not the subjective determination of the planning staff. This project has been before the Planning Office and this Commission before. The last time it was reviewed by the Planning Office it found it exceeded the minimum threshold by 10 points, now under a similar but different scoring criteria a project that has been improved is found to not meet the threshold. Mr. Kaufman said when the Planning Office scored the project the first time it was given 2 points under community/commercial facilities, because the staff at that time felt the project was located within 6 blocks walking distance of the commercial facility in town. The new planning score shows a different finding, now 8 blocks walking distance. The project has not changed and the commercial facilities in town have not changed. Mr. Kaufman said that Mr. Gibson, applicant, would show later how the project was scored properly the first time and improperly this time. Mr. Kaufman said that one issue would bring the project over the threshold. 13 RBCORD OF PRocr;BDIIIGS REGULAR MBE'lIlIG ---ft.AIIIiIIIIG Alft) ZOIIIJIG CODYSSIOR MARCIl 18. 1!J86 Mr. Kaufman said another area that could not be disputed was the points that the applicant should be given for its commitment to curbs and sidewalks. The Planning Office has chosen to disregard the recommendation of Jay Hammond that the commitments made by the applicant exceed joining the improvement district. If the City decides to seek the formation of an improvement district it talks to people and decides if the distict should be formed, then trys to set up a formula for assessment. Neighbors and citizens have an opportunity to oppose the district and very often they are defeated even when the City wants one formed. Once an improvement district has been formed the City makes the improvements and the amount of money that is paid by the individual property owner varies. This is a long and arduous task before the improv- ements are made. Depending on the formula used the percent that a property pays for the curbs and gutters can be as little as 10% or as much as 100%. Mr. Kaufman asked the Commission to compare that to their commitment. They have come forward and offered to build the curbs and sidewalks at their own expense, without the need for an improvement district. Additionally, they have been told by the Engineering Department that while they would like to see this applicant do this the Engineering Dept. is not certain what the best alignment would be for the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks thereby asking the applicant to wait until a plan was devised. The applicant agreed and made their application based on the Engineering Department's recommendation. Mr. Kaufman concluded saying to score the applicant the same as if all they were commi ting to do was join an improvement district was not only unfair but clearly wrong. Mr. Kaufman said they were told by the Planning Off ice that one of the reasons they did not meet the threshold was because they should have gone out in to the neighborhood looking for things to improve. The Planning Office could not identify any things that should have been improved. Mr. Kaufman thought it was important to look at the kind of project being proposed. It is 4 studio units and 4 employee units which are intended for low income, local type housing. The applicant is not trying to create a project that costs a whole lot of money, nor looking to spend money on improvements that the neighborhood may not even need. The applicant did, however, find some constructive things to do. As noted in the memorandum from RFTA, the bus shel ter this applicant is offering to build not only will benefit the residents of this project but others who live close by. Yet no where in the Planning Office's suggested scoring is the extra expenditure 14 RBC6ItD OF PItOCI!lIlDllIGS IlBGUIiAlt- MBIlYIIIG-- PLARRIlIG Alft) JOIIIIIG OODISSIOR MARCIl 18-;--ff86 of money for the shelter used to give the applicant extra points for improving the neighborhood. Mr. Kaufman said this project had previously been scored in 1982, several of the current Commissioners were also Commissioners at that time. In those days the threshold was 43, at that time the lowest score was given by Hunt which was 51 1/2. The Planning Office scored it 53. All of the scores greatly exceeded the threshold. In the first scoring session the Planning Office scored neighborhood compatibility a 3 and all of the Commissioners gave a score of 3, now the category is being given a score of 2 and this proposal is better. In the area of site design, again the old Planning Office gave a score of 3 along with every Commissioner and now it is being given a 2. In the areas of energy and open space the same applies. Mr. Kaufman said at the time the project first came in there was a problem with the roads, since that period of time the roads have been upgraded because of the Centennial project. None the less the applicant has committed to 2 things that will improve the roads in the area, the bus shelter and curbs gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Kaufman thought those improvements were deserving of a score of 2 rather than the suggested I point. Mr. Kaufman said he thought the project deserved to meet the threshold and deserved to be built. When examined in light of the other projects in the neighborhood this is a superior project in the neighborhood and a needed and desirable proj ect for the community. Dave Gibson, applicant's architect, explained and outlined on a map the walking distance to the commercial core. Mr. Gibson said the PI anning Off ice had measured the di stance by way of the Hopkins St. bridge, in which case the distance from this project is slightly more than 6 blocks. However, most pedestrians would not use that route. The shortest distance between the two points would probably be down King St., across the Mill St. bridge, and on past Herron Park, being less than 6 blocks from the commercial core. Mr. Gibson said based on this proposed walking route he would ask the Commission to award a score of 2 points. Mr. Gibson said they are required by code to look at the quality of design based on 4 possible categories. Mr. Gibson said there was more than one way to look at the concept of excellence and IS -..__. rr RECORD OF nocr;BDIRGS RBGULAlt- DETIlIG - PLARRIlIG Alft) JOIIllIG CODYSSIOR MRCR 18. ItS6 the concept of acceptable standard. The first way that comes to mind would be to look at the intrinsic qualities that something has, if the drawings and project seem to work together grade on that basis. Another way to judge excellence would be to take in context excellence with reference to what, standard with reference to what. Mr. Gibson said this neighborhood is in an area of town where real estate sells for approximately $120. per square foot. In near by areas real estate sells for as much as $300. per square foot. Mr. Gibson said he would like to suggest that it was not appropriate to use the standard of excellence used on one of the near by areas to grade this project. He proposed that this project be looked at in reference to its surroundings, what would be excellent in this location. Mr. Gibson said, regarding neighborhood compatibility, the parking was standard and acceptable for the area. The exposed dumpsters are also standard and acceptable in the area. Also standard in the area are large block buildings. Mr. Gibson said while they are trying to be compatible with the neighborhood they are also trying to improve on the compatibility. Regarding site design, Mr. Gibson said the previous project on this site was right at the set back. It was a 3 story building. This proposal has I 1/2 story elements along the street, a fence, and a set back of 20 to 30 feet. Mr. Gibson said he would suggest that their site design was not standard but rather an excellent site design. Mr. Gibson said he also felt they had an excellent energy design. Regarding the trails Mr. Gibson said they had done as much as was possible for the location. Mr. Gibson felt they should be scored at least standard on the trails. Mr. Gibson said the previous application had 37% open space. Mr. Gibson said just because space is undeveloped does not mean it is open space, unless it is open to the street it does not count. With the new application it has been opened up to the street. Additionally, they have committed to hydroseed and irrigate all of the city property, inCluding 6 Aspen and 2 Blue Spr uce trees. Mr. Gibson said he fel t the green space was not only above code with 32% of the lot but another 4,000 feet of City property that would be planted and maintained, suggesting an excellent score. 16 ltBCOBD OF PRocr;ZDllIGS RmOl'.-Alt- DB'.rIIIG PLAlftIIJIG Alft) JOIIIJIG CODISSIOlI MllCII 18. 1986 Steve Burstein, planner, distributed score sheets to the Commiss- ioners. Burstein said the changes in this application, from the previous application, were undergrounding utilities, more employee housing, and the under grounding involved with parking. That explains the difference in the scoring of the 2 applications. Burstein said the Planning Office considered the project to be a good, but standard project. Anderson opened the public hearing. Tim Fortier, neighbor, thought the proposed project would be a good amenity for the neighborhood. He commented there were no other projects in the area that looked as good. The bus shelter would also be a nice amenity for the community. Mr. Fortier thought this project would clean up the neighborhood. Anderson closed the public hearing. Whi te commented that he I ived behind the proposed proj ect and this proposal is 150% better than any other project in the area. Whi te suggested that the bus shelter should be turned to face Park Circle. White said the curb and gutter would al so be an amenity. Hunt said it appeared the building in the south east corner went right to the property line. Mr. Gibson said there was a 6 foot fence on the property line. Additionally, balconies are allowed by code to project up to 1/3 into the set back. The Commissioners scored the project. Ms. Tygre left the meeting at 7:20 P.M. Btlr...u PAItX PRMBc.r COJICI!:a!'IuAL REYIBlf/SPBf:TM. IUWIBIf lIoti-orrl Colombo moved to exempt the employee housing in the Sunny Park division from the Growth Management Plan process; Hunt seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson questioned whether this case should be a full subdivision exemption or subdivision exception. Burstein said the Planning Office had agreed it should be a subdivision exemption process, recommending approval subject to 7 conditions (outlined in the 17 REGULAlt DBrIlIG RBCOltD OF PRocr;BMRGS PLANNING Alft) ZOJlIlIG COMMISSION MIlCII 18. 1986 Planning Office memorandum dated March 12, 1986). Burstein reviewed the 7 suggested conditions. Mr. Kaufman said they had a problem with condition 16. The water course described is not on the applicant's property. The Enviro- nmental Health Department has indicated by memorandum that there has not been a problem but that it may become a problem. Mr. Kaufman did not think that a fence would be necessary for a problem that may come up. The City owns a park across the street and they have not fenced it. White commented that a fence would block off a pleasant view. Peyton suggested striking condition 16 from the approval. MollulIl Hunt moved to recommend that City Council grant the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of constructing a multiple family dwelling subject to conditions II through 13, and conditions #5 and 17, outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated March 12, 1986; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. su........ - pAliIl[ PliIl'lo"lBC'l' I'UD REVIEW 1Ioti0Dl Blomquist moved to determine that the Sunny Park development is exempt from the requirements of PUD; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. su........ PIdtK PROOZC'l' -I'A1tltIJIG EDIIPfIOll SPECIAL REVIEIf Mullun: Hunt moved to deny the request for a reduction in parking spaces, resulting in eleven on-site parking spaces; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:40 P.M. ~~-uJ~~Is-- --- Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 18