Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940201 '.....~- ,~- ,.. ''''''......, A~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:45 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Commission, planning staff and public comments were dispensed with. MINUTES JANUARY 18. 1994 Roger made a motion to approve minutes of January 18, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce then adj ourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 4:55 P.M. commission membeothen continued with a joint session with County Planning & Zoning commission on the subject 0 GMQS revisions. eputy Clerk Aspen/Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission JointWOJk Session Minutes- February 1,1994 Page 1 . esent and voting: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission - Bruce Kerr, Chairperson, Tim Mooney, Sara "'-Garton, Roger Hunt, and David Brown. Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission - Jody Edwards, Chairperson, George Krawzoff, Suzanne Caskey, Peter Dobrovolny, and David Guthrie. Cindy Houben described the agenda for tonight's meeting and the overall process. She discussed some of the theory behind suggestions. The growth management criteria will be looked at. The amendments will be made as a part of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Eventually a recommendation will be made to the City Council and the BOCC. Cindy discussed scheduling. The major change in the criteria is that it now goes directly to the goals. It now slates that these are our community goals, and ways people can achieve these goals are suggested, but not limited. Cindy Houben described some guidelines for reviewing the criteria. Sara Garton believes that exempt applications should meet the criteria, even though they are not scored. Cindy Houben explained these are projects which are above and beyond the baseline development. If elements need to be included for any development. The intent here is to look at projects required to go through the competition. Sara Garton continued that hospitals, schools, or post offices, for example, should be required to meet the performance criteria. Discussion ensued. Jody Edwards explained that when the determination is made as to what is allowed to be exempt, only those things which have met the overall community goals will be considered exempt. Extensive discussion ensued on scoring, the range of scoring, the base for scoring, the importance of threshold, and thresliold within categories. Gideon Kaufman pointed out that the scoring becomes very subjective when the scoring range is increased, especially without any criteria defined. scussion ensued about the advantages and disadvantages of the new system for smaller projects. Connie Harvey suggested that a separate competition might be set up for small projects to compete against eachother, and large projects against each other. Glenn Horn suggested that things can be done off-site which the developer can get credit for. Each member gave their position on the scoring for staff to evaluate and come back with a new proposal. Several suggestions included: -2 to 8, threshold 0; -2 to 8, threshold 0; 0 to 5, threshold at 0, but believes that professional advice be obtained from a mathematician; Roger was in agreement with a 10 point scale, with neutral or threshold at least a third up that scale; Sara Garton suggested 0 to 10, with threshold at 3; Bruce Kerr -2 to 8, threshold 0; David Guthrie suggested 0 to 7 with threshold at 2; David Brown 0 to 10 with threshold at O. Roger Hunt interjected that if the criteria is established, and then superimposed over the scale, the scale will be automatically defined. The members discussed the language under Section VIII. Growth Management Scoring Criteria, C.1.f. ''restricting commercial projects to occupancy by 'local-serving businesses." David Brown believes this is too restrictive, and the word "encourages" should be used rather than "restricting". The goal is to revitalize the permanent community. Sara Garton pointed out that very few stores are 'lourist only." The definition of 'local serving businesses" will need to be tackled. Gideon Kaufman asked for clarification on the language under Section VIII, C.l.b. ''mixing (intermingling) free- market and affordable housing units rather than segregating them in distinct areas". ndy Houben explained that the intention is to prevent private home enclaves and avoiding enclaves of \__...,fordable Housing within the same project. Roger Hunt suggested that there should be clusters throughout the community. Discussion ensued. Aspen/Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Minutes- February 1, 1994 Page 2 . ,ger Hunt has a problem with establishing family housing that is only ownership. He believes that rental is also ""acceptable. Other housing might make sense. Cindy Houben explained that this may be the case, however, you will get more points for ownership housing. Discussion ensued. Further discussion ensued as to how to apply the Housing Authority Guidelines, as they are adopted from time to time. The 'lhen current" guidelines language should be included. Glenn Horn pointed out that this may be in conflict with the AACP and the definitions might need to be reviewed. The next meeting is scheduled for February 8, 1994 to begin at 4:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, RACZAK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. INC. /n. -~ /~CZ.k ~~:~~In~a~ecretary APZ2.J .94