HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.pz.gmc.min.012500 MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday~ January 25, 2000
"-" Growth Management Committee - Joint Meeting w/Aspen P&Z
Aspen, Colorado
Approved: March 14, 2000
INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
Pitkin County Commissioners
Peter Martin (chair)
Gayle Embrey
Peter Thomas
Sheri Sanzone
City of Aspen Commissioners
Robert Blaich (Chair)
Roger Haneman
Timothy Mooney
Roger Hunt
Staff
Cindy Houben
Julie Ann Woods
"-" Lance Clarke
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peter Martin called the meeting to order and stated that them was a
quorum.
II. COMMENTS
Commissioners
There were no commissioner comments.
Planning Staff
There were no planning staff comments.
£ublic Comments
There were no public comments.
Peter Martin asked if any of the board members had a conflict of interest
regarding tonight's business; Sheri Sanzone declared that she had a conflict with 7th &
Main Accessory Commercial Exemption. Martin stated that it is the policy of the County
to have the board member with a conflict remain present, but not participate in any way,
III. MINUTES
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
,
- ~, A. March 16, 1999
B. ,June 15, 1999
C. November 9, 2000
~.~ Motion: Commissioner Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of the March 16, June 15, and
.~ November 9, 1999 meetings; seconded by Commissioner Sanzone. Motion passed
unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. AACP
Summary
The purpose of thc hearing is to adopt the 2000 Aspen Area Community Update.
The hearing for this plan was opened on January 18, 2000 and was continued to today.
Staff Presentation
Julie Ann Woods stated that the comments that were made by City and County
P&Z and by citizens have been attached to the memo and are numbered for reference.
Staffwould expect the P&Zs to consider these items and seek public Comment before
adopting the plan. Woods noted that the city. attorney, John Worcester is present to
address the issue of authority in adopting the plan.
Preliminary Discussion
Martin asked for Worcester's advise regarding whom has the authority to adopt
the plan. Worcester stated that originally the question posed te him was whether or not
the city council should adopt the plan by ordinance or by resolution. His advice at that
time was that the city council should adopt it the same way they did the last time.
Addressing Martin's question, he advised the commissioners that there should be a joint
recommendation by the P&Zs, however the city council should make the final decision
on the plan. He added that there should be some record indicating that the city council
has approved what the commissioners have done. Roger Hunt noted concern that this
could cause the P&Z to lose their authority by redefinition and not by legislative action.
Worcester responded that was clearly not his intent. He pointed out that the land use code
pretty much adopts the AACP by reference and because of that the city council should
make the final decision. Hunt stated that he would like to move to adopt and then let the
city council take whatever action it wants to take.
Summary of changes
Noting the list that is attached tO the meeting memo, Cindy Houben stated that there
should be discussion on these issues that were raised at the last meeting.
1.Should parcels such'as Zoline/Burlingame, the Moore Family parcel, and the
Gramiger parcel be labeled "Private Land with Conservation Value?"
2.Alternatively, should these parcels be noted on both the affordable housing and
space maps?
Comments
2
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Sanzone commented that she valued thc work that thc open space group had done
on this had stated that some of their comments hadn't been brought forward. She stated
that the group had identified parcels that didn't make it on m the open space map as
parcels with conservation value. Sanzone wanted to ensure that these would be on the
open space layer of the future land use map. Then a decision would have to be made
whether these parcels should rise to the top as open space or affordable housing parcels.
Houben noted that the fuvare land use map indicates certain parcels that have
growth, open space and affordable housing values.
Martin stated the maps are key to this plan and asked how staff proposes to
address this issue.
Houben responded that there shouldn't be a conflict between the two maps.
Labeling on the open space map would be approprmte, but it would have to show more
than "private land with open space value". It would need to indicate that affordable
housing is anticipated.
Sanzone emphasized that this group didn't believe that some of these parcels
could be a mix of affordable housing and open space. She hoped that after the plan is
adopted and as pan of the action to finalize the plan, staffwould go back and talk to this
group to make sure they hadn't missed anything.
3. Should there be a green zone around the City of Aspen but not as far as the
AABC?
Comments
Woods noted that this was Tom Cardemon's comment. She stated that there is
quite a bit of open lands in the greenfrastructure of the composite map. She thought that
his hope is that there would be even more.
4. Should the word physical be added before "growth would slow and stop" in the
philosophy section of growth?
Comments
Sanzone stated that she didn't like that recommendation because it implied that
there weren't other types of growth and thought it should be left alone. There was
general agreement regarding this.
5. Do 800-1300 affordable housing units seem too high?
Comments
There was a consensus among the board members not to re-visit this as they've
been over many times before.
6. Should this number of units be a goal not a policy?
Comments
Martin stated that it should remain a policy.
3
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
7. Should "study the feasibility of creating minimum zoning density, which
promotes the goals of AACP" be added to the Action Items?
Comments
There was consensus that this should be added to the action items.
8. Should the concentric rings be placed on a map of the city with the original town
ske and the city limits to use as a tool for action item #5?
Comments
Woods stated that this had been a suggestion by Steve Buettow and he isn't
present at the meeting tonight. There was general agreement that concentric rings
shouldn't be placed on the map. A statement was made that the theory map was adequate
to describe this. Sanzone stated that they'd spent a lot of time trying to place concentric
rings on the map and hadn't been able to do it.
9. Should goal C, page 14-15 be added to the housing section?
Comments
Woods stated that this was a goal that is in the growth section that Jasmine Tygre
had felt very strongly should be placed in the housing section as well. Martin responded
that Charlie Tarver had made the case that this would be redundant. Another member
noted that this reinforces it. There was consensus to leave it alone.
10. Should Action Item #77 be added to #2? _
Comments
Woods stated that #2 became a catchall and it's related to looking into the whole
relationship of residential development as it relates to GMQS. By consensus they agreed
that #77 should be added to #2.
11. Should Action Item #5, have added to status: finished and ready for work session?
Comments
There was no objection to add to #5.
12. Should #8 have included with it # 11, 12, 22, 32, 56?
Comments
The request was to roll a lot of the housing action items into one group. Martin
asked if this helped in any way with the drafting. Houben responded that it makes it
more convenient for the public. There was agreement to include #11, 12,22, 32 and 56
in #8.
13. Should "look at volume" be added to action item #3?
Comments
There was a consensus that "look at volume" should be added to #3.
14. Is #17 appropriate?
4
MINUTES
of the Pitkin Count' Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Comments
Woods stated that this was adding neighborhood commercial and service
commercial industrial zoned areas. This is additional work to consider. Tygre's
comment at the last meeting was that il wasn't appropriate. There was a consensus to
leave it as is.
15. Should the ADU action item #58 be included in #2 GMQS?
Comments
Woods thought that Steve Buettow had suggested this be looked m in terms of the
whole GMQS issues. There was a consensus to add the ADU action item #58 to #2.
16. Should #95 be part of#2?
Commems
The idea would be to capture whatever growth could be captured for change in
use application and this should be rolled into GMQS. There was consensus to have 95 be
part of 2.
17. Should #98 be higher up?
Comments
There was consensus to move this higher up, but after #10.
~--- 18. Should some of the transportation items be moved up?
Comments
Charlie Tarver made this suggestion at the last meeting because none of the
Transportation issues had made it to the top 10 priorities. There was consensus that # 18
and #34 should be moved up.
19. Should other items be addressed before #9?
Comments
Woods noted that this had been Roger's issue at the last meeting. There was
consensus to leave this as is.
Public Connnents
Connie Harvey commented that she felt there was a rush to get this wrapped up.
There may be some bad mistakes being made particularly regarding the urban growth
boundary reaching way out as a result of the flagpole annexation that was done to capture
Maroon Creek Club and Burlingame property. The various committees didn't endorse
this. There has been a lot of talk about infill being a good idea and trying to keep green
space beyond the city. There is a forced issue to get the Burlingame Housing. She stated
that this is a huge amount of growth. She understands there is a need for employee
housing, at the same time it's an engine of growth. She noted that Maroon Creek is
critical wildlife habitat. She stated that transportation is a huge issue. The road that is
proposed as an access road is noticeably more dangerous and doesn't think it could
5
MINUTES
of the Pitkin CoUnty Planning and Zoning Commission
TUesday, January 25, 2000
possibly work. She stated that she had spoken with Ralph Trappani who basically stated
that this being a private road, waSn't his problem. She stated that it is a serious problem
and could be a matter of life and death. She thought the answer right now is to
temporarily put the urban growth boundary at Maroon Creek until they can sort out some
of these issues.
Joy Candill stated that she agreed with everything that Connie said specifically
the danger of the proposed road. Referencing Deer Hill, Joy stated that it was agreed at
the last meeting, that this wasn't critical habitat as far as the state wildlife maps were
concemed~ Rick Thompson a wildlife official from Denver had secondarily identified
Deer Hill as being critical wildlife habitat for deer and smaller animals because of the
sage brush in that habitat.
Connie Harvey noted that giving Mr. Zoline the right to put the free market units
there as a reward for allowing the City to take some of that land is exactly against every
principle the community plan endorses. It is an engine of growth.
Toni Kronenberg stated that she didn't realize the public meeting process had
started. She's been a member of the transportation committee for 2 ½ years and didn't
see a public notice for the first meeting. It is her understanding that this particular piece
of property, that Connie and Joy are talking about, is going to be labeled open space with
affordable housing. She doesn't want to get into the same situation that happened with
Bass Park. She feels very strongly that it should be labeled "private land with
conservation value'~. She suggested that it have a dual purpose and then when it goes
through the process, two intents could be looked at.
Houben responded that the map is labeled as an affordable housing, open space
mix. This is what was discussed in the meetings. There may be a difference of 0pinion
as to whether that is what should happen.
Kronenberg Stated that the AACP criteria require development or housing to be
within a ¼ mile of transit oriented system. She stated that she was very concerned about
the access of New Stage Road. She noted the transportation aspect as being the real
concern.
Kronenberg asked if Musick was removed from the W/J project, could that site be
looked at for affordable housing as a potential site.
Woods responded that the urban growth boundary as moved inward to be the
outer most ring from the intersection of the North Forty project. She referenced those
boundaries on the map.
Houben stated that this is something that would be more appropriately addressed
by the BOCC.
Houben stated that there have been lots of discussions regarding the
appropriateness of having a mix of housing and open space land on certain parcels. It is
her opinion that they've been incorporated through review of the park's department into
the open space map. There are differences of opinion and a decision will have to be made
about how they want the open space maps to work. She stated that there is a draft before
them tonight and they do need to act on that.
6
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Roger asked what happened with the Brush Creek intersection in the process of
sba'inking the urban growth boundary.
Woods responded that it became a transit oriented development node. So they
would anticipate some level of developmem.
Roger asked if transportation were by W/J would this be an incentive for re-
looking at W/J for transportation developmcm type node.
Sanzone responded that it's no: part of the scope right now as far as the rail study
has gone.
Regarding the wording in the plan, Krunenburg thought it was important to be
consistent to ensure the balance and integration between Aspen and the resort and Aspen
and the community.
Commissioner Comments
Addressing Connie Harvey's remarks, Bob Blaich stated that he happened to
agree with her on the Burlingame points she made. Both the City and the County have
agreed to ask Trappani for clarification and try to find a better solution for the problem.
They received a boiler plate answer from him that he isn't satisfied with. He noted that
Harvey has hit some very important points here and this is something that they will have
to deal with.
Tim Mooney stated that he is happy that the urban growth boundary includes this,
so the City P&Z can have it on their table. He thought the deal stunk from the beginning,
and it was never a community development plan. The City P&Z will watch it closely.
City P&Z Motion: Conu'niss~oner Roger Hunt. moved to adopt Resolution 2000-03 with
the changes discussed tonight as well as the change in the title, specifically removing the
word" recommending adoption of 3 and 11; seconded by ?. Commissioners Hunt.
Haneman, Mouney and Blaich voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
County P&Z Motion: Commissioner Sanzone moved to approve the joint resolution of
the Aspen and Pitkin County P&Z adopting respectively the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan update, with modification as discussed and agreed to tonight; seconded
by Commissioner Thomas. Commissioners Martin, Sanzone, Embrey, and Thomas voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Stillwater Affordable Housing Growth Management Exemption/
Deduction/Allocation
Summary of request
The Applicant has applied for an exemption from the "scoring" and "competition"
procedures of growth management as provided for in Code section 3-150-030 for an
affordable housing project to include 17 units ( 13, 3 bedroom units and 4 one-bedroom
units) to be located on Lot 1 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD east of the City of
Aspen. The proposed category and square footage mix are as follows:
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Bedroom/Units Number of Units Category Unit ' Square Footage
per Unit
One 2 Category 2 988.88
One 2 Category 3 1004.3
Three 6 Category 3 1427.1
Three 7 Category 4 1427.1
Total [ 17
The property was conveyed by the Benedict Family to Plak'tn County for the purpose of
either constructing affordable housing, construcfmg a single family residence or selling
the proper~y. The projecx has not yet received conceptual PUD approval by BOCC. The
County P&Z will be reviewing the project in its entirety this evening.
Staff Presentation
Tamara Pregl gave a brief description of the project as outlined above. She
referenced the site plan of the subdivision.
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Application
Lee Novak, project manager for housing, stated that they are posing a 17~unit
project. He referenced the map to orient the commissioners on the location. He
discussed the no. of bedrooms per unit and referenced the basic layout. Novak stated that --
they tried to use the topography of the land and retain as much natural vegetation as
possible. They had two goals, to provide family oriented housing and then to create the
density that was necessary to address the community need. They also needed to balance
density with respect m the natural beauty of the site. It's neither in the urban core or the
rural area. and they used the architecture of the site plan to reflect that position. They
have tried to comply with all or most of the protective covenants on this parcel. Even
those covenants that do not apply to affordable housing have been moved forward. They
are also trying to incorporate green building design elements. They believe these goals
and elements will create a project that is affordable and beautiful to live in and will create
a great neighborhood as well.
Bob Blaich asked what the status is on this project for potential annexation.
Novak responded that there is an existing water service agreement, which allows the City
to annex the parcel, although he doesn't think there is a plan to annex this parcel.
Referring to Criteria E in Novak's report, Blaich stated that there seemed to be
some controversy by the neighbors with this project and asked ifNovak was satisfied that
the neighbors are in agreement with this proposal. Novak indicated that he was not. He
stated that they've tried several different avenues to obtain feedback and the feedback has
been very minimal.
Blalch asked for clarification on the Benedicts' right for approval on this. Novak
responded that the Benedict family has the right to comment on this application. Pregl
stated that she has spoken with Jesse Benedict who indicated that overall they like the
8
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday; January 25, 2000
project, however they definitely have a concern with Building G and its closeness to Lot
2. She hasn't received anything in writing from them.
Mooney asked where the referral comments were on parks dedication. Pregl
responded that she did not receive any referral cotmnents from Open Space and Trails or
City Parks Department. Novak stated these were difficult sites for building and they do
not want to impact the riparian area. There are two benefits for donating this to Open
Space, it's the beginning of the East Aspen Trail, and this is a significant additional area
for the homeowners to maintain.
Mooney asked what the value of the property is. Novak responded that they had a
choice to do a dollar contribution based on the calculation that is in the code, or they
could do a land con~bution, which turns out to be close to seven acres. It seemed it was
more of a benefit to do the least expensive alternative and have a win-win solution for the
homeowners. Pregl responded that the BOCC does need to accept this and they may
require a cash-in-lieu payment.
Public Comments
Martin introduced Tom Raganetti as one of the founders of the Rocky Mountain
Land Use Institute and one of the leaders of land use law in the country. Raganety stated
that he also a land use lawyer from Denver and is representing four sets of neighbors that
are extraordinarily concerned with this project. He stated that their concerns would be
reserved for the planning commission later this evening.
Commissioner Comments
Martin asked if they were optimizing density on this project and is it something
they should consider at this time. Lance Clark stated that the recommendation of unit
numbers is very important and it should come from the Growth Management Committee.
Thomas asked for clarification on where the carrying capacity figure is coming
from and why it's not being optimized. Novak responded that the County has certain
codes on what is buildable and what is not. He noted different areas to be avoided such
as steep slopes, riparian areas, etc.. He noted that this is under scenic review, which
limits height, which makes for a wider footprint.
Sanzone stated that she is very comfortable with the density they are showing on
their site plan. She stated that their concerns about cut and fill are real and the economic
impacts to the project would be huge. For the location in town, this is an appropriate
project.
Martin stated that this seems to look exactly like a public housing project and he
wondered if they couldn't do better than that. He suggested they could design building
that look like single family residences that are four-plexes. Sanzone stated that it does
resemble a single-family residence that has been very well done. Novak stated that from
the side view you could see that the buildings are broken out into separate features.
Blaich stated that from a design point of view it's a very good project.
Haneman asked why everything shows the entrances to the project from the south
end. Novak noted that the existing roadway was on a very steep slope and the protective
9
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25. 2000
covenants state that entrances to each lot must be at a 90-degree angle from Stillwater
Lane.
Motion: Commissioner Sanzone moved to recommend, as the Growth Managemem
Commission. to the BOCC. that they exempt 17 affordable housing units from the
scoring and competition procedures of GMQS for Lot 1 of the Stillwater Ranch
Subdivision/PUD subject to conditions as stated in the staff memo: seconded by
Commissioner Blaich, Motion passed unanimously by the Growth Management
Committee.
Motion: There was a unanimous motion by the Growth Management Committee m
extend the meeting until 7:30.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7~ & Main Accessory Commercial Exemption
Staff Presentation
Chris Bendon, staff member, presented a summary of the application stathxg that
this is a city project. He noted that this is a public hearing and it was noticed in the
Aspen Times on January 8t~ Bendon stated that he has been requested to disclose that he
and Commissioner Shed Sanzone are in a relationship and that Shed works for Design
Workshop who has been retained by the housing authority to produce a landscape plan
for the project. Sanzone has no involvement in the project at Design Workshop, neither -
Bendon or Sanzone have a financial interest in the project and they have not discussed
this ar home.
Bendon discussed the review process stating that this is an exemption review for
recommendation to city council. This is a mixed-use application for 11 affordable
housing units with a comer store to be located at 7th and Main. The comer store is
approximately 650 Sq. Ft. and this review is just regarding the commercial exemption.
For voting purposes, the simple majority is all that is necessary.
Bendon discussed staff's various reasons for supporting the application, which
included the creation of a community. He noted that he has two letters to read into the
record at the appropriate time.
Applicant Presentation
Lee Novak, Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, added to Bendon's
presentation stating that there are 10 one-bedroom units, and a single two-bedroom unit,
There are eight on site parking spaces. They have two proposals for off site parking. The
applicant has proposed to do three remote spaces at Benedict Commons and the housing
board has asked for three on street parking permits. He referred to maps and discussed
the building design. He stated that the HPC has recommended unanimous conceptual
approval and that the housing board has also approved this project.
Regarding the store. Novak stated that the decision to add the store was not easily _
made. Discussing trip reduction, he stated that there is a significant neighborhood
10
MINUTES
of the Pitkin Coun~ Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
population as well as a sizeable hotel population and instead of getting in their car and
going to Clark's or City Market. they will go to the comer store. The second benefit is a
neighborhood gathering space and noted that in his experience these informal meeting
places really enforce the community. The third benefit is affordable commercial space
for a locally serving business, noting the high commercial rent in this community. The
current plan is to charge only enough rent to cover the loan for development cost and they
believe this will help them recruit a locally serving business. He discussed space
available for waste and recycling receptacles. He stated that this is an experiment in
bringing together a number oi' community goals, including housing, trip reduction and
enhancing neighborhood vitality. They believe it is important that the City create this as
a model for bringing these goals together, noting that there aren't any standards for mixed
use like this.
Blalch asked where the trash would be located and how it is accessed. The
applicant pointed out the receptacle locations and truck movement on the map. He stated
that the trash would move fi.om the back door of the store to the receptacle. He also
asked how the commercial space would be serviced, noting that delivery at the front of
the store is totally unacceptable and the alley should be used for this. There was
discussion on how this could be made possible. Another member pointed out that there
were concerns about delivery vehicles using the alley because o£the carports being
oriented offthe alley. Blaich also noted that there were concems regarding the city
subsidizing commercial space.
Public Comments:
Dan Martinau, a neighbor, stated that he was unable to stay for this portion of the
meeting, but wanted to point out that his primary coneem is parking. This is already a
major issue and he understands that there are t'ewer parking spaces than units proposed.
He stated that the average unit carries two vehicles and it would be nice if this were
addressed tonight. He noted that he'd written a letter, which was included in the packet.
Andy Abbott, resident o£ 7~;~ & Hopkins, stated that he thi~s this is a bad project.
He pointed out the location of the parking in the alley and noted that trucks coming in and
out oi'the alley would block it. He stated that rail and bus isn't approved yet, so cars are
parked there already and if commercial is brought in and not allowed to park on Main, the
residents won't have any place to park.
Toni Kronenberg stated that she is definitely in £avor o£ affordable housing. She
stated that she worked on the transportation committee with the AACP and the goal was
to decrease the amount o£traffic coming into town. She stated that they had
recommended a long-term parking lot out at the Aspen Airport where people could rem
spaces. She noted other recommendations within the AACP planning. She encouraged
the commission to take a look at the intent, philosophy and goals and make it a priority.
Regarding the commercial use presented in the application, Kronenberg stated that this
comer is over used and the parking is really tight there already and it's a dangerous
intersection. She doesn't thit~ a convenience store is appropriate.
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Motion: There was a unanimous motion to extend the meeting until 8:00PM.
Commissioner Comments
Martin noted that when he first read the application he thought it was great and
the presentation was excellent. He stated that having heard from the public and the table
he is now convinced that the project is flawed and there is a tight parking situation there. Another member noted that store employee parking would be an issue also.
A comment was made that there was a question on whether that employee might
get a unit there.
Another comment was made that the proposed commercial activity is too much in
this location and would not attract the social characteristic that is desired, mostly because
of its location.
Motion: Commissioner Tim Mooney made a recommendation of approval to the Aspen
City Council for the Growth Management Exemption for a 650 Sq. Ft. accessory
commercial space for the comer store proposed at 7th & Main Affordable Housing Project
pursuant to the GMQS Resolution 0004; seconded by Commissioner ?.
Additional Discussion
Embrey stated that she couldn't find a parking place in 1989 or 1990 when she
worked there and that was before the affordable housing was built behind it. She feels
like there is a sense of community at City Market in E1 Jebel and she's not sure that they
need that at this point.
Bendon read two letters into the record. One letter is from Daniel Martinau who
was heard earlier in the meeting. The other was from Gayle Parker who states that the
commercial accessory unit is larger than her unit and the space should be used for another
living space, or storage for owners.
Thomas stated that he didn't understand why they'd need a convenience store
there, it certainly wouldn't be a gathering space and it wouldn't have the impact that is
expected for cutting down on site generated traffic.
Motion Continued: The motion failed unanimously.
There was discussion on providing an amended resolution for the benefit of the
City Council. The conclusion was to not provide a follow-up resolution.
B. Stanger Metro Residential Scoring/Allocation
Summary
The Applicant is requesting one metro area residential GMQS allotment to develop one
free market dwelling unit. The Applicant proposed to create a 1.8-acre developmem
envelope, which includes a 0.6-acre building envelope. The Applicant also proposes to
establish a 5,625 square fool public park along Smuggler Road. to dedicate a public trail
easement along Smuggler Mountain Road, and to designate 9.7 acres of the property as
12
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
an open space and wildlife enhancement area. The Applicant proposes to limit the
allowable floor area on the property to 11,000 square feet, where 15,000 square feet couldI
potentially be allowed in the AFR-10 zone district. In addition, the Applicant proposes to
limit the mayamum height of the residence m 26 feet, where 28 feet is allowed in the
AFR-10 zone district.
Staff Presentation
Suzanne Wolff stated that she included the scoring procedures in the packet. She
gave a summary of the application as outlined above and pointed out the location on the
map provided. She added that Herb Klein stated that the applicant has now agreed to
limit the floor area on the property to 7500 Sq. Ft.
Wolffwent through the staffscoring on the project as outlined in the packet
stating that they gave the project a total score of 9 points. They found that it did not meet
the threshold score of 3 points in three of the categories.
Regarding the Isr criteria, Wolffsummarized the applicant's proposals stating that
staffhas recommended a score of 3. Regarding the 2~a criteria, Wolffsummarized the
applicant's proposals stating that staff has recommended a score of 2. Regarding the 3r°
criteria, Wolff summarized the applicant's proposals and stated that staff has
recommended a score of 2. Regarding the 4t~ criteria, Wolffsummarized the applicant's
proposals stating that staff has recommended a score of 2. Staff's recommendation is that
a development allotment be denied for the application.
Motion: There was a unanimous motion to extend the meeting an additional 15 minutes.
Applicant Presentation
Herb Klein, attorney and applicant's representative, introduced Bob and Gayle
Stanger. He stated that it is important to consider how the scoring is supposed to work.
He stated that the code gives guidance and suggests criteria for the scoring. Some of
these are irrelevant and some the project simply cannot satisfy. He stated that the code
addresses this and states that projects should be evaluated according to reasonable
expectations regarding what can be expected given their size and scale.
Klein asked the commissioners to be fair and impartial and to look at this
application based upon its merits. He stated that they've done as much as possible given
the reality of the site and its location.
With respect to the details of the project, he stated that Suzanne had explained
where they were pretty well. He referred to a concept map of Wilk Wilkinson's in an
effort to address concerns the commissioners may have regarding development on
Smuggler. He stated that if this development were approved, it wouldn't encourage
incremental development up the face of Smuggler because the slopes are extremely steep
and it's unlikely that anything would be built there. He noted Wilkinson's assertion that
Smuggler Mountain Road is owned in fee by the Smuggler Mountain Toll Company. He
suggested the possibility that somebody else might come in with a different development
13
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25. 2000
plan for this property and that there is a potential for eight new building sites if this
happens. This threat would be extinguished by their development.
Criteria l: Revitalizing the permanent community:
Klein noted that they didn't have any arguments with affordable housing, he did
think the score should have been more than three, but didn't want to belabor the point.
Criteria 2: Providing transportation alternatives:
Klein noted staff's comment that people will continue to drive because of the
location. He stated that this is probably true, but it's not necessarily true for all possible
trips. He stated that there is a culture of hiking and biking on that trail and there is a bus
stop at the end of the road. He suggested that there is no reason to think that people
won't be riding their bikes or walking in the summer.
With respect m the trail easement, Klein stated that it is clearly not going to be
used so long as Smuggler Mountain Road is'being used in the current fashion and not
serving any future developmem up top. There is already a trail there, and no reason to
create another trail. [fat some point in the future there iS more development at the top,
the Smuggler Mountain Road will need to be widened and improved, If that happens, the
trail easement will be important. Klein stated that they have proposed a public park, and
this could make the road an even more popular destination. The most significant
contribution is the contribution of money to RFTA. RFTA has said that $5,000 would
cover a bus shelter and they are proposing an additional $5,000 to go towards the
purchase of buses. The code does not require any exaction related to RFTA, so this is --
purely voluntary. He noted that they've responded to all except two of the transportation
criteria. Item f, "creating a less congested downtown core" was clearly not applicable to
this proposal and that he wasn't sure how they would achieve item h. "altering land use
patterns to accommodate and contribute to a more efficient and effective transit system".
They believe that they have made an exemplary proposal and should receive a score of at
least 4.
Criteria 3: Promoting environmentally sustainable developmem:
Klein noted the proposed park on the map and stated it would be a fabulous
community amenity. He discussed the plans for the park. He stated that they've
proposed a 5.200 Sq. Ft. park that would take further approvals because it would require
fill on steep slopes and they are willing to go through this process.
Regarding 1041 compliance, Klein stated that they can't avoid the severe wildfire
hazard. He stated that there is no place on either of the two claims that doesn't have this
hazard. They've avoided steep slopes where possible. The larger envelope is
necessitated by the need for a place for the well, septic and driveway. There are portions
of the development envelope that contain 30% slopes. They feel the project should be
scored based upon what they are proposing to do as everything else is and they are
proposing to mitigate the wildfire hazard. He stated that scrub oak is very flammable and
if there were Aspen trees there instead of scrub oak they would be in a moderate wildfire
hazard area. The state forester said that the aspen trees would come back if they cut
14
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning,and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, JanUary 25, 2000
down the scrub oak and this was a great opportunity to create a much healthier and more
natural environment there. He discussed other proposals for wildfire mitigation such as
providing an easement to the fire department. He stated that the fire department has
approved their plans.
Regarding enhancing wildlife habitat, Klein stated that they've avoided critical
wildlife habitat and winter range for elk and deer is above the road. They've proposed a
wildlife protection and enhancement area. He discussed other proposals for enhancing
wildlife habitat.
He suggested the scoring was low and that they should have at least a 4 or 5.
Criteria 4: Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character:
Klein stated that there are several criteria that staff acknowledges doesn't apply to
them. It basically comes down to the compatibility of the house mad the neighborhood.
He discussed the proposals as outlined in the packet. He referenced a map to note the
building envelope and proposed design. He also passed out photos of the property from
different viewpoints in town, and stated that it wouldn't be visible from virtually all of
downtown.
Public Comments
Chet ? asked what the impact to the road would be. Klein responded that the
county engineer hasn't required any road improvements, so the road will remain the way
it is.
Stuart Lusk stated that he lives in town. is familiar with the project and noted his
support for the project.
Commissioner Comments
Regarding Klein's statement about the eight houses, Wolff clarified that the
County maintains that Smuggler Road is considered to be held in easement, and not in
fee, and, therefore, that the road does not subdivide the proper~y.
Regarding development below allowable density, she stated that this is in the
AFR-10 zone district and is based on a 10 acres mimmum lot size. This merged parcel
contains 16 acres and essentially meets the zoning reqmrement. She stated that there
were different criteria at the time the Silver Brick Claim obtained a GMQS allotment.
Regarding the roads, the road management and maintenance plan does not allow
plowing above a certain point, so there will have to be a change to the road maintenance
designation in order to plow the road all the way up to the property. That hasn't been
requested at this point. St~xrme noted that Ed Van Walraven, the fire chief, said it would
be questionable whether they would have adequate access to the property if the road
weren't plowed. Hunt asked who plowed the road now. Suzan~e responded that the
county plows it now up to the last existing residence and they would have to go to the
BOCC to request a change to that plan. In response to this, Klein stated that Bud Eylar
had given very little feedback on this and they were not aware of that designation. He
15
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
stated that he was surprised that Bud didn't mention this in his referral comments. This is
something they will have to look into.
Sanzone asked what Parks thought about the hiking and biking park that is
proposed. Wolffresponded that she did not receive comments from Parks, or from Open
Space & Trails.
Sanzone asked if RFTA had identified the proposed bus shelter as an
improvement that they would like to make. Wolffresponded that Mike Davis hadn'l
mentioned that, but had commented that $5,000 was more than enough to construct the
bus shelter.
Martin stated that the GMQS scoring has always been hard to read and
understand. He read a section in the code, "it is recognized that different types of projects
will address certain concerns and others won't and that these things should be flexible".
Martin stated that trying to apply standards that don't apply puts them in an awkward
position. He understands that development on Smuggler is not popular, but if ever there
was a time to be judicious and make an unpopular call, he thought this case stands out as
one they have to be very careful with.
Wolff pointed out that the code states that projects should be evaluated according
to reasonable expectations regarding what could be expected given their size and scale.
Staff had a lot of discussion regarding the fact that the code doesn't include location in
this statement. She stated that location is an obvious problem with this application and it
definitely affected how they scored this and it's an important thing to consider for a
property that does not have a development right.
Grafton Smith stated that he spem eight years working up there and he got ko
know everybody up there. He stated that he is really glad that he was asked to be a parr
of this project because this is exactly what he would do.
Vote: Ballots were signed and collected by staff. Clarke reported average scores:
Criteria 1:2.875
Criteria 2:2.125
Criteria 3:2.625
Criteria 4:2.625
The threshold was not reached in any of the categories.
Additional Discussion
There was no additional discussion.
Final Vote: Ballots were signed and collected by staff. Clarke reported average scores:
Criteria 1:2.75
Criteria 2:2.25
Criteria 3:2.5
Criteria 4:2.5
These scores do not meet the threshold.
16
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
Clarke stated that this recommendation would now be forwarded to the City
Council and the BOCC. The applicant has fourteen days to appeal the scoring. If they
do, a joint City Council/BOCC meeting would have to occur within 30 days.
Additional Discussion:
Blaich stated that staff was irresponsible in overloading the commissioner's
agenda for this evening. He thought it was extremely unfair to the people that are here to
make presentations. He noted that he intended to mention this to the city staff also.
Clarke responded that at the time they scheduled the GMQS, the AACP was not on the
agenda. Blaich responded that this shouldn't have been allowed.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned.
17