Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950321 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21. 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Robert Blaich, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska and Steven Buettow were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jasmine: Regarding buydown, I don't know the exact proposal itself but it seemed that Council was really wrestling with the idea of the buydown concept to begin with. They didn't think this was such a good thing and they were uncomfortable about spending Housing Authority money when it wasn't actually going to produce housing. People in the community think the most important thing is to preserve the housing that is already here even if it takes deed restricting or whatever. A lot of the property that is affordable but not officially in the affordable housing pool is property that should be saved because it really does have minimal impact. Even though you are not creating additional growth you are enabling locals to stay here rather than making them move down valley and then building publicly "funded employee housing" and then having them move back. This is not what people had in mind. I think that there are other reasons that the buydown concept won favor with the Commission and I am kind of upset because I think most people think that the last thing government should be doing is building more housing. They would much rather see the private sector do it or see something like buydowns. Sara: I think Council is slowing down because they don't have the guarantees from the owner and they do want to buy down. They are very interested in this. The Housing Authority has recommended it and they are all for it. They are not getting the guarantees from the owner that they want. Bruce: Philosophically there is much more resistance at the County Commissioner level to the buydown concept than there is with City Council. STAFF COMMENTS May 9th meeting we are trying to let P&Z act on what will come about from the latest floor area discussion in Ord. 35 which is our floor area overlay interim process which is due to expire the end of May. As a follow-up on the west end traffic review or wrap up we have since included Stan Clauson and Bob Gish and representatives from the Police Dept to try to come to some kind of resolution. Stan feels that he would like to come to some kind of review the more recent documentation and information that Bob Gish has put together. One idea he has is to change the bus routing and not wait until the next bi-annual review. Sara: I would like him to meet with Dan Blankenship before he comes to us. Bruce: If it shows up on our agenda again before the next bi- annual review I will ask for someone to make a motion saying that we find that the SPA is in substantial compliance and we will not look at the issue again until the next bi-annual review. I just am not going to continue to have this on our agenda and have arguments between citizens and the agencies involved. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. MINUTES FEBRUARY 7. 1995 MOTION: Roger moved to adopt the minutes of February 7, 1995; second by Jasmine. All in favor, motion carries. ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS MOTION: Roger moved to continue this public hearing and table action on the Aspen Center for Physics, Meadows SPA Amendment, Final SPA, GMQS Exemption and Special Review to date certain of April 4, 1995; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carries. BARBETTE TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Kim: Made presentation as attached in records. Roger: I don't have a particular problem with this application. I do have a problem with your rationale saying office space is always available. It is very easy to say there is office available. That is due to the fact that the price is so high no one can afford it. So sure there is going to be open office space. That, to me, is not a rationale for this. Bruce opened the public hearing. closed. No comments. Public Hearing Kim presented affidavits of mailing. (attached in record) " 2 MOTION: Bob moved to recommend to Council approval of an amendment to the Aspen Land Use Regulations to allow health and fitness facilities as conditional uses in the 0 Office zone districts; second by Sara. Motion carries 4-1. Jasmine opposed. ""_.c'~ Jasmine: For the record the reason I am voting no is because I do not feel that the conditional use review criteria are adequate. Roger: Even though I voted in favor of this, I agree with Jasmine. MOTION: Sara moved to approve the Barbette conditional use for a health and fitness facility in the Aspen Athletic Club Building with the three conditions stated in the Planning Office memo dated March 21, 1995 and that it meets the review criteria for conditional use in the Office zone; second by Bob. DISCUSSION Jasmine: I think it will be helpful to have site specific information included as part of the motion because future people who may be looking back on it will say "OK, I understand that" because they have got an example of why we came to this decision in regard to this particular conditional use. Bruce: By its very nature a conditional use review and approval is not precedent setting. It is very site specific and use specific. So the fact that we approve a health and fitness facility in this location and somebody comes to us next month with an application for a health and fitness facility in the 0 zone district we look at it fresh and we make independent decisions based on these review criteria. VOTE: All in favor, motion carries. HPC CODE AMENDMENTS Bruce opened the public hearing. Bruce: On page 8--A plan and survey I am expense and burden necessary. (2) where you are now going to require a site wondering whether that creates an additional on the applicant that mayor may not be Amy: The survey is required by the Building Dept. for the kind of project that would be reviewed by HPC. A site plan is what I consider basic information in order for us to review. Sara: within buying The Building Dept. accepts a survey that has been done a year. They usually have to do this anyway when they are it. /.~.;.",. Amy: And for the smaller projects I said site plan or survey to "'-..- 3 be determined at pre-ap. change in a window. I don't want to ask for a survey for a , Bruce: I don't have a problem with #6 as long as it is made clear. Roger: Maybe you want to add on the end "As appropriate". What might be appropriate for one development isn't at all appropriate for the other. Bruce: If you put in something like "A visual description of the neighborhood context through at least one of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. And then put in the language similar to what you had on page 6-- "To be determined at the pre-ap conference so that they know ahead of time. If it is a problematic site then you are going to be able to tell them that a model will be needed. Amy: The problem is if I decide at pre-ap that a model is not required and then there is a whole lot of public comment during the review I do not want to go back and request a model. You could add something about excessive costs to the applicant. Bruce: I think that would be great. Bob: On the other hand the more information they provide up front the better chance they have of going through without a lot of delays. On the Overlay Board we get stuff in there that they have done a lot of work on but they didn't give the right information. Then we ask them to go back and that is costly. I think a judgement call should be made by staff on that. If they feel a model is required then they should be very explicit about that. Several projects we have reviewed would have been very difficult without models. No public comment. Bruce closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger moved to adopt Resolution 95-6 of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission recommending the Aspen City Council amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code regarding the following Sections. All of them Section 24-7-601, 602, 603, 604, 606, 703, 704, 706, 709, second by Jasmine. DISCUSSION Bruce: There is a text amendment review criteria and we have taken those into account and consideration in reviewing these proposed text amendments. Roger: I will include that in my motion. \ '-. 4 AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to state that there is a text amendment review criteria and the commission has taken those into account and consideration in reviewing these proposed text amendments, second by Jasmine. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: What we did with the HPC code amendments was to just ask questions and make the changes. Sara: On page 2 7-584 add is supplied or stream margin review I am wondering inspection written into the code. are submitted. Regarding if we can add on-site Kim: All of our approvals require a certain amount of checking. Sara: There is nothing about enforcement. Kim: If you write in something about "this project's conditions shall be enforced" does it imply another process and another approval may be a different level of enforcement. Bruce: Explicit that the code will be enforced. Bruce: On page 3 what does it take to be a qualified wildlife vegetation consultant. Kim: In terms of real bodies I believe we were referring to Mike Claffey, Core of Engineers or Alen Zenquish or his counter part or the Division of wildlife. Sara: Are they licensed? Kim: I do not think so. Bruce: It needs to be clear if it is a government agency or what? Jasmine: Part of stream margin review is not just the physical maintenance of traditional or historic stream flows but also visual impact. The point of the visual impact does not seem to come through to the applicant. Part of the value to the community is aesthetics. A river should look like a river. Kim: I hope my mandatory setback and #4 which is no removal or damage to vegetation outside your envelope will keep a handle on it. 5 ----0 Robert: What if someone decides to put river stone on the embankment, I assume that is protected under this. Kim: That is prohibited with #4 and #9. Sara: People were re-Iandscaping thinking it was nice. Bruce: Do you have the top of slope defined. Kim: It ended up being a new definition. Roger: I have a general problem with this entire section and after reading it is confusing. In the first paragraph no development shall be permitted unless the commission makes the determination as set forth below but then you put the statement about the review after wetlands, riparian zone. In order for it to make sense unless has to be inserted to make sense of it. Kim: You are saying no development shall be permitted on the Roaring Fork unless the commission makes the determination. You have to comply to keep in compliance. Bruce: Sara raised question in terms of requests from applicants and what we can request. Kim: I asked the attorneys if there was language that would work to get at these short of being sued. He said probably not but if we codify it one would have to sue against the code. The attorney has read #2 and will defend it. Bruce: On green line are there any comments? Sara: I thought we were concerned about height in the 8040 greenline. Kim: Most of the discussions were related to floor area and heights and percentage of slopes as to whether you should build on it or not. We still in the future have to work on growth management and can discuss 8040 at that time regarding height. Bruce: Section 5-511 follows under supplemental regulations. Kim: That relates to lighting, out of ground fuel storage tanks. Bruce: How long are we going to be landscape maintenance police? Kim: In reality it would only happen it something widespread occurred. Bruce: I think we are addressing new projects; the landscape is important to the overall approval of that project. I feel we need 6 to state a certain period of time but I do not want to pick that number. Kim: It does limit it to landscaping shown on any approved site development plan. Bruce: The landscape plan is indicated and two years down the row a tree dies and then another approval is done and the next person does not have to comply. Is it fair to make the one guy buy a new tree because a tree dies. I am concerned about that. Kim: Maybe we should go retroactive. For instance the east cooper project as that site has caused more concern in the last two years than any others. People called me and I said I couldn't do anything. Bruce: That brings up Ruby Park also. The other concern is enforceability. If you choose 5 years that project is long gone and sold. It seems to me that we are making the property owner a grantor of the landscaping of his property. Kim: That is important and at the time of approval it the site will have including parking and trees. communities have something similar to this. states what Most other ""...~~. Jasmine: A similar situation happened with Syzygy and the developer was to put in a elevator and didn't and then we told the guy who runs the restaurant that he needed to put in the elevator. What happens with a lot of projects is that the original developer makes promises and sells off part of the project to someone else who are left holding the bag as it were for things that were promised but which were part of the approval process. Vegetation is similar but can die. The accountability is transferred in a lot of things that we do. Bruce: With changing conditions is an over burden regulation. requirement. in landscaping it seems like this I could live with a two year Robert Blaich: You also have to consider natural causes. Kim: I think this gives an out if something happens beyond control. Bruce: For example my lodge has plantings over 20 years old and they need replaced and I would have to go to the Parks Dept. to get a permit to cut down a tree. This is the same kind of thing we are going to place on somebody and may be onerous. Certain trees get in water lines etc. There is landscaping that is initially done that fits in and later it gets over required. Robert Blaich: Good landscape architects will not over plant in 7 the beginning but most people go to the local nursery and pack trees and bushes in. '~' Jasmine: looks. Initially the more you put plantings in the better it Roger: We need to look at the immediate landscape plan and which trees do you expect to last 20 years and within the 20 years which trees do you expect to take out. We need to identify the trees that would be taken out. Jasmine: Maybe we state that the replacement trees and shrubs should say "appropriate " plant material instead of saying equal size and variety. Bruce: Down at the south end of Wagner Park to be would be a clear violation of the electrical code and if that extension cord comes down and electrocutes somebody we got a real serious problem and we are not enforcing those kinds of things which are allover the town, bldg. violations. I cannot support someone in staff being a landscape policeman. Sara: I do not see how this will be tracked either. Kim: I did this in my other job before I came here and it ended up that every stick was critical to greenery and I was designated to do a comprehensive landscape check and this in my mind is more of the ability of staff to respond to citizen complaints. Roger: If a building is in danger it certainly is more important than a tree. Kim: I am hearing that we should attach a time limit to this. Robert Blaich: We are talking about quality within a whole area. Sara: Possibly a staggered landscape plan. Kim: Developers do not think along those lines they want to get it done immediately. Robert Blaich: They want to sell the house and they put a lot of stuff around it to make it appealing for a buyer. Jasmine: Possibly give applicants options on dying vegetation. I feel if something dies should not have to replace it with the same thing. Kim: How about three years from the date of occupancy. What about keeping shall submit a revised landscape period and eliminate the rest. 8 Roger: What about satellite dishes which are 18 inches or smaller. "~ Kim: It would be a planning director sign off and it would cost $225. Roger: What it up put it somewhere and concealed it and could eliminate the $225. process. Robert Blaich: Do you mean review of any satellite dish. Sara: It states that the review occurs only if it is 2.5 and above. Roger: 2.5 and below is the Planning Director with a $225. process. Robert Blaich: I feel that is a burden. Sara: I missed that you meant every size dish. Roger: I wouldn't mind it if it were a $50. fee. Kim: Anything under two feet doesn't have to be reviewed pending Building Codes. Bruce: Anything above two feet would go to Planning Director sign off and if he has a problem then he can come to us. Roger: I would make the crossover two feet and have CD review it. Kim: Ok 24 inches and under no review and 25 inches and greater CD sign off. Kim: Vested rights is still in the discussion stages. Bruce: I would propose a resolution that would include stream margin and 8040 greenline as amended. I would not be in favor of landscape maintenance and approve satellite dish as amended. Roger: I would be in favor of Bruce's suggestion including 5-511 landscape maintenance as amended. Bruce: The vote would be 5-0 on everything but landscape maintenance. Kim: I will try and reiterate: Scratch equal size and variety and replace with similar quality. Sub 2 submit for approval revised landscape plan. Explanation of revised plan shall accompany the submission. Roger: I would add that we supported the three year minimum and would like to include that in the approval. 9 MOTION: Roger moved to include Kim's reiteration of landscape maintenance and amended it to include at least a three year minimum; second by Jasmine. All in favor, motion carries. Bruce: We have left to review bIg. envelope; affordable housing and vested rights. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the rest of the landuse code amendments to April 4, 1995 and continue the public hearing until that date also; second by Jasmine. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Sara made the motion to adjourn; second by Robert. All in favor, motion carries. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10