Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840221 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~'" ~a c. F. HOEUH B. B. It L. co. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 Paul Sheldon moved to nominate Roger Hunt as Acting Chairman; seconded by David White. All in favor, motion carried. Elected Acting Chairman, Roger Hunt, called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with commissioners David White, Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee, Jasmine Tygre, and Paul Sheldon, alternate, present. Perry Harvey and Welton Anderson arrived in the conference room at 5:10 p.m. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Alan Richman, planning office, requested an addition to the agenda. There is some resolution to the multi-year allocation with respect to the resi- dential projects. He asked for a recommendation of a bonus allocation. It is appropriate to put this on the agenda. Nick McGrath, attorney for applicant Bill Poss, requested this be placed under old business. Hunt noted include this topic as "B" under old business. Hunt noted corrections for the minutes of February 7, 1984. First paragraph, page one, line five, he rephrased the language to read "He recommended imposing no parking one day of the week to one side of the street in those areas for road cleaning." Line nine, he changed "streets are changed" to "streets are effectively narrowed to one lane..." Perry Harvey arrived at the meeting. White asked if a meetin~ was going to be set to discuss the parking and cleaning issues. Richman thought it would be discussed this meeting. However, he did not know if it was best to deal with it as part of the overall plan- ning. He would prefer to deal with it specifically. Pat Fallin moved to adopt the minutes of February 7, 1984; seconded by David White. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt yielded the floor to Chairman Perry Harvey. Harvey requested a copy of the minutes of December 6, 1983, be included in the next packet. PUBLIC HEARING: TOP OF MILL-REZONING, 8040 GREENLINE AND CONCEPTUAL PUD Richman noted a work session is scheduled for Tuesday, February 28, 1984. The work program and sketch plan will be presented. Richman said the applicant requests tabling the issue until March 20, 1984, until there is some resolution of the lodge issues. Harvey opened the public hearing. Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table action on the Top of Mill rezoning pursuant to the request of the applicant until March 20, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt informed Harvey that an item "B" has been added to the evening's agenda, multi-year allocation for residential GMP, under old business. Richman said fueapplicants by law have to go forward on February 27th to Council. OLD BUSINESS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN POLICY RESOLUTION Harvey introduced the amended, redrafted resolution. Richman summarized the changes the commission directed him to make. The last "whereas" on the bottom of the first page and the first "whereas" on the top of the second page are new and essentially talk about what the Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 the document is attempting to do: to provide a comp plan. On page three language is included in objective eight dealing with the ultimate carrying capacity of Aspen-Pitkin Oounty in terms of build out. Harvey suggested underline or score the changes. Lastly, policy one, sub "d", Richman in- cluded the language "the annual growth rate of the city is 2%." It simply reflects fact, not a change in policy. Hunt noted the language concerning "in the base area" needed revision. Harvey said the commission did not mind siting the 2% as historical fact, but the commission does not want the city obligated to the 2% if the county's growth rate is exceeded. It states that "the quota system should be a com- prehensive... (d) designed to meet an annual county-wide simple residential growth rate not to exceed 3.5% including an annual city-wide growth rate of 2%." That reads as a policy statement. Richman said that is the adopted growth rate. Harvey said no, that has been the historical growth rate. Har- vey said he thought it was an overall county rate of 3.5%. Harvey noted Knecht requested that the commission include in the resolution that histori- cally the growth rate had been 2%. The commission did not mind including it as a historical statement, but not as a policy statement. White concurred. Sheldon suggested using a "whereas." Hunt suggested include in parenthesis "historically the annual city-wide simple growth rate has been about 2%." It has nothing to do with the policy; it is just a bit of information. Harvey instructed Richman to locate parenthesis after "3.5" and before "including;" and change "including" to say "historically the city-wide simple growth rate has been about 2%." Richman acknowledged the amendment and Hunt's reminder to revise the words in number four "in the base area" to "the base area." Pardee made comments on the presentation of the document. The document reads find until the policies. The policies are written too legalistically. The language is not comprehensible to a layman. He quoted policy seven: "Aspen and Pitkin County should support the private development...Community." The writing is too contrived. There are too many whereas's and semi-colons, etc. Harvey suggested that Richman and he edit the CO~ents together. Tygre said the context is perfectly clear; Fallin agreed. White supported Pardee. Richman argued the writing style indicates the ideas evolved. Harvey asked if the commission would accept Harvey and Richman revising the context to read easierly. Pardee moved to adopt the goals, objectives and policies of the growth manage- ment plan resolution 84-2 as updated in the planning and zoning memorandum of February 21, 1984, and, as changed in policy number one with the paren- thesis enclosing "including historically 2%." And with the condition that the chairman be authorized to revise the language of the eight policies to make it more readable. And that the commission need not review the docu- ment again. Seconded by Welton Anderson. Discussion followed. Fallin and Hunt opposed this. White said if the language is simplified then the com- mission needs to review it again. Pardee amended the motion to say re- turn the revised resolution to the commission. Anderson withdrew his second. Seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried with Tygre and Fallin op- posed, Anderson abstaining, and Hunt reserving the right to oppose the revised edition. OLD BUSINESS: MULTI-YEAR ALLOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL GMP Richard Grice, planning office, reminded the commission that there were eighteen free-market units applied for this year. There is a request for excess allotment. The code provides a procedure whereby the Council could approve as much as 20% of the quota established in excess of the quota per year. That is eight units. Richman clarified that there are eighteen units applied for and ten available. Grice said that Ute City place's time for the building permit has been extended by the Board of Appeals, those units have not expired. Ten units are available eighteen units are wanted. There is a procedure that would allow the approval of all three of these projects. Grice noted first, the quota of ten available units is limited in comparison to the established quota of 39 units. Second, the planning office does not consider the 119 units that were not carried forward to be significant, since, the 119 units accumulated at a time when employee housing units were not exempted from the growth management plan. The 119 units do not reflect the current policy that all employee housing must be counted against the plan. However, over the past two years there have been only 39 units used for " " , I - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlII!~' C. F.HOECHL B. B.1t L. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 -2- residential development. Seventeen of those were Smuggler Run. The last two years' quota has fallen behind by one full year's quota allocation. He advised the commission to consider the merits of the projects. If the com- mission wishes to support the Aspen Mountain PUD project, obviously one step would be to support this excess allotment. The additional eight units would allow the full build out of the 700 S. Galena project which is a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The poss' with the East Hopkins Professional Com- plex have competed successfully four times for the residential-office use. It is a unique use and desireable in the right setting. Currently poss needs a quota of three additional free-market units. An excess allotment would also provide the poss's their three units, and they would be finished. His final comments were this year's competition was exceptionally close. The difference in scoring between the first place and third place winner is .88, less than one point. He had no recommendation for the quota. Richman explained if the commission awards the eight units the code requires that those units be deducted from a future year quota. The commission will not create additional units to the quota. The code states it has to be offset within a five year time period. He recommends that the quota be deducted from next year's quota since these buildings would be built next year. If the lodge project proceeds with the various changes in use and other employee housing solutions that the application proposes, the commis- sion will not have any quota available for several years. The lodge applicant is proposing taking several years worth of residential quota. That is the downside of awarding a multi-year allocation. The activity to create em- ployee housing will eliminate future residential quota. The multi-year allocation is allowed well within the regulations. Richman suggested bor- rowing from December, 1984, quota. Pardee questioned if the the Poss project would receive three units, and 700 S. Galena five. Richman noted that there was an appeal on the scoring. If the appeal is successful, 700 S. Galena would finish second. Gordon would receive three, 700 S. Galena seven, and Poss none. If the commission awards the eight units, everyone would have what they asked for. Pardee expressed a concern about future year allocation: ceives a future allocation and then does not build, that applicants. Can the applicants make an assurance to build Does the commission think that is worthwhile. if someone re- hurts future to the commission. Art Daley, representative for the applicants of 700 S. Galena, said the appli- cants would be willing to make the same arrangements with the commission that they made on the lodge allocation. The applicants would agree to sub- mit in full the building permit four months in advance of the code's cutoff date. They would make that agreement with respect to the residential allo- cation. That would be four months before December, 1985. McGrath said Poss plans to build this spring. If Poss does not receive the allocation, he will not come back next year. It is a crucial matter. If poss does not build this spring and the project goes under for unknown reasons, the commission will have adequate time to re-allocate. When Poss went through the various stages of competition, everyone in the planning office thought the normal available quota was not 39, but at least eighteen would be available. Only through various procedures has it been learned that there are only ten. Pardee stated he does not want the city and its competitive process to be rendered ineffective because a building permit has not been issued. The ....."~.,,_.._-~,-~~~+- .-._-,.,~^......~ --,-""."'~'"-'''''''''''''''-''''''''''''~~''' .-I-.--.,~.,.-... . Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 other applicant has agreed not to take the future year allocation if he has not taken a building permit by "x" date. That protects the process. Harvey asked if this date is four months prior to next year's competition. Daley said the code states that the applicant has a two year period to apply for the building permit once he has a quota allocation. This appli- cant will shorten that date by four months so he actually only uses up one year of the quota. Harvey questioned the total number of units requested by each applicant. Grice listed Gordon three, 700 S. Galena twelve, and East Hopkins Professional three. Harvey asked how the commission reacts to the recommendation to Council to allocate the 20% excess which is 7.8 units. Grice rounded this to eight. Harvey asked if that is proper. Richman said the code does not say netto, therefore do. Harvey added the provision that the building permit be applied for four months prior to the deadline of December, 1985. Someone said August 1, 1985. McGrath suggested "received" not "applied for." Richman advised the commission to make a motion. Planning office would transmit this to Council, the issue is on Council's agenda Monday. Pardee suggested not using whereas's, and indicating there has been a small number available, and noting the hundred units were dismissed previous- ly. Richman said Grice presents reasons in the memo to Council. White asked if there is a representative for the Gordon property. Grice assured the commission that the applicant has all the quota he needs. Pardee moved to recommend to Council to take eight additional units from future residential GMP allocation, next year's allocation. He would like to insure that the recommendation mentions the high quality of the three projects, the extreme closeness of the grading, the low number of units available, and the hundred unit reduction by employee housing, to justify the commission's position. Harvey suggested include that the allocation would be returned to available quota in the event that the applicant has not madecomplete submittal for a building permit by August 1, 1985; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried with White opposed. PITKIN RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT Colette Penne, planning office, introduced Michael Lipkin, representative for the applicant. Harvey entertained questions from the commission. Hunt asked if the potential railroad right of way is any change that would infringe upon that protection. there has been no change. The railroad right of way on the plat. assured. Has there been Lipkin answered that is spelled out clearly Lipkin explained the darker gray on the plat represents the house which is nearly completed, located on the right. The house on the left is represent- ative of the one on the drawing board which is built out to its FAR limit. He wanted to demonstrate how the FAR relates to the building envelope. Between building envelopes there is about 75 feet, it is more than double that presented with the nine units. Because of the regressive nature of FAR as it drops, the total developable FAR drops by about 25%, if every lot was built to its maximum. The house already built is not. This proposal allows less building mass than the previous proposal. White questioned "with the relinquished units returned as development cre- dits." Penne explained that a number of units were given to the applicant when the applicant developed Smuggler Run. This settlement occurred between the previous Council and Pitkin Limited. Some units were used here, others were held for use on other parcels. The units are transferrable develop- ment rights. Harvey noted the units are credited outside the growth manage- ment plan approval. Penne explained the units are part of a settlement contract. When this project is reduced, the number of reduced units are still development credits for the applicant. The applicant may sell or develop the units himself. White questioned the applicant's reduction, is it from nineto six with ~- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORIII~' c_ F.. HO~CK El 8. B. It l. C~. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 -3- three residential development credits. Penne said yes. Penne noted this is a complex agreement. Harvey explained it does not increase the density on any parcel but enables the applicant to buy a condominium-zoned piece of property and build the condominiums without going through growth manage- ment. Pardee questioned the initial agreement. Did the applicant agree with the developers to place twelve units on that site. Why were "x" number of units just not given to the applicant to do with as he wished. Harvey said the applicant was given nineteen units. Lipkin stated the settlement agreement predated any plans for this property. Pardee asked if the number was nineteen regardless if all units were used. So~eone said yes. Harvey asked if there are any changes in Penne's recommendations or conditions. Penne answered no. Harvey questioned the statement "all representations of previous approvals." Is the commission not dealing with all agreements? What are "representations?" Penne concurred "agreements" was a better word. Anderson questioned if the one story was not representative of one story. Lipkin noted that the language in the proposals stated specifically there would be 800 feet of living space above 800 square feet of office space. Har- vey stated his perception of one story is not vaulted ceilings or maximum height. One story is eight to ten feet between floors. White agreed. Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Pitkin Reserve PUD amendment, subject to conditions one through four being the same as listed in the planning office memorandum, dated February 21, 1984, page two; seconded by Jasmine Tyrge. All in favor; motion carried. VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Richard Grice, planning office, explained someone complained to the building department that there had not been a stream margin review prior to the in- stallation of the cobblestones to stablilize the stream. Harvey described the jOb as man-made. He questioned the description in the memo, dated February 21, 1984, from the planning office: it is a sensitive, natural deal. Grice corrected him. The memo states "a reasonable natural appearance." Pardee said this is the most sensible approach to save the bank. In Harvey's opinion the question is this action allowable. Can someone come to the commission and request an approval in a stream margin review after rip rapping the stream bank. Sheldon questioned the wording of the stream margin review. The stream margin review is designed to prevent anyone from building anything permanent within an area where the stream banks are going to change. Pardee said if one is losing half of his land, he has the right to act to save it. Sheldon suggested the house should have not been built in a place where it will be affected by the course of the river. Edwards noted other considerations came into place after the house was built. It was not a natural change in the stream flow, structures built upstream affected the bank's stability. This applicant does comply with the code. The applicant was required to get an engineering study, although planning office did not find that necessary. Grice said the applicant has not altered the location of the stream bank, has not affected the flow of the river, has not slowed the river, and has preserved the vegetation. Had the applicant not stabilized the stream bank, the applicant would have lost a number of trees and possibly a house. There is no impact on the flood plain. There is reduced erosion. The applicant meets the criteria. The applicant did a sensitive job. He presented a photograph of the rip rap. It is a reasonable natural appearance. Sheldon reiterated that if everyone made rip rap along an eroding river bank, the river would be channelized. Harvey agreed. Sheldon stated this is a dangerous precedent. It is contrary to the stream margin review. In this Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 1984 case, the commission can make an exception because there is a previously existing dwelling which the applicant is trying to protect. Harvey does not want to give the impression one can ignore the stream margin re~iew. He does not want this action by the commission to reflect that approval was granted after the fact. Pardee suggested the motion reflect this. Grice presented an argument in the applicant's favor. The applicant did approach Stan Steven, building department, and asked if she needed a building permit to build a retaining wall to prevent the stream bank from eroding. Steven said no. The applicant then built the retaining wall. The applicant's intent was to save the property. Harvey reiterated he does not want to set a precedent in which someone else might come forth and site the volk action. Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review. Discussion followed. Pardee suggested including a statement that the commission is not approving this because the applicant came to the commission after the fact. Harvey suggested a statement about meeting the criteria. Edwards suggested siting when the application was made and does it meet the conditions. Hunt said keep the motion as is; seconded by Welton Anderson. White concurred with Sheldon's and Harvey's comments. Harvey suggested the commission re-examine the stream margin review criteria in the ordinance. Consider adding a statement which deals with someone channelizing the river without appearing before a stream margin review. Sheldon said this needs to be done if this channelization is allowed. Harvey said do not include this in the motion. White questioned the stream margin review also. All in favor; motion carried. Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Sheldon. All in favor; motion carried. Harvey asked the secretary to include a copy of the stream margin review in the next packet. 'tJiltl.11A/ '71A4/A Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk ~ .'