Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.pit.gmc.min.082697 MINUTES of the Growth Management Commission Tuesday, August 26, 1997 Sister Cities Meeting Room city Ha~! Aspen, CO INDIVIDUALS PRESENT Commission Members - Voting (8) Marcella Larsen Sara Ganon Steve Buertow Roger Hunt Marta Chaikovska Steve x~n/pple David Guthrie Charlie Tarver Commission Members - Non-Voting (2) Peter M~in Doug Umq~g Pit!dh County Staff Lance Clarke Representatives of the Highlands Base Village PRELEVIINARY BUSINESS County Code Amendments Regarding Voting The city P&Z members expressed hesitations over the recently adopted amendment to the counw code requiring equal representation between the City and County on GMC votes for projects in the county. They suggested that until they have had opportunity to consider the amendment, the voting should follow the previous protocol. County staff eommenxed that because the projec~ lies in the unincorporated counw, the voting protocol should follow the current provisions in the county code. The City members acquiesced for this meeting, but requested further discussion at a later meeting. Because the City P&Z had only four members present, two of the six count3r members - Doug Unfug and Peter Martin - volunteered to abstain from young. ASPEN HIGWLANDS BASE VILLAGE "EXCEPTIONAL" PROJECT STATUS AND METRO ARF_~, MULTI-YEAR RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENTS David Guthrie opened the public hearing. Staff Comments Lance Clarke began by coramenting that the BOCC must still ~'ant the allocations: the purpose of this meeting was to determine whether the project merits "exceptional" project status and qualifies to receive multi-year residential allotments. He described the elements of the project and the criteria used to determ/ne whether its exceptional or not; iT mu~t meet the threshold score based on the scoring standards for metro area residential developmem and demonstrate conformance with the 10 criteria cited in Code Section 3- 150.30 B Scortng Standards for Metro Area Residential Development There are four standards for measuring residential developments; projects are measured on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the top score. The standards measure the e,,aem to which the project: - revitalizes the pe,wnanent commumty: the quanuty and quality of affordable · 'housing 'and mixed uses clicked a staff recommendation for a score of 5; - provides transpo~ation alternatives: the applicant's pledge ro upgrade RFTA serwce, transportation demand management program, and contributions to overall metro- area traffic circulation improvements earned a staff recommendation for a score of 4; - promotes environmentally sustainable development: the applicant ,has complied with all of the county's environmental reqmrements and taken some additional steps which elicit a staff recommendation of 3: - maintains design quality, historic compatibility, and community character: the intention behind the site planning of encouraging social interactions and the recreational and open space dedications earned a staffrecommended score of 4. The recommended staff scores exceed the minimum threshold. Conformance with Code Section 3-t60. 30 ]5 In order to receive optional multi-year allotments, a proJecT must substantially exceed the minimum scoring threshold for the criteria cited in this section of the code. Staff concluded that the Highlands Base Village meets or exceeds the requirements of these criteria. {'.For discussion, please refer to the staff memorandum for the GMC meeting.) Staff Recommendation The3' recommended that the GMC find the proje~'s request for determination of exceptional project status and mulu-year residential allotments meet the required threshold criteria of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and that the GMC recommend that the BOCC grant the allotments. Commissioner Comments and Discussion The applicant opted to answer questions, rather than make a presentation, as this project has received a lot of review already. The commissioners' questions and comments addressed the topics of transportation and accessibility, environmental concerns, public services, and social interactions. Transportation and Accessibility Roger Hunt began the discussion by asking the applicants to describe the access for set,Ace vehicles. Bob Daniel. the applicant's representative responded with a brief description of the parking structure layout Private vehicles ;vill utilize a different access fi:om service vehicles; the service docks will accommodate 18 wheelers, and there is a corridor between the loading docks and the village core which is dedicated for distribution from the servSce vehicles. Roger then inquired whether the transit turnaround and drop- off areas might be able to support light rail, should it ever reach into the Maroon Creek Valley; Bob responded that such a use would require some reconfiguration, but that it would be possible to ,m~e such adaptations. Roger conclude this discussion with a request that the applicants plot an access for the potential light rail leg, and that the applicants, in their infrastructure planning, do it in such a way so as not ro preclude future rail access. Environments! Concerns The cornn,assmners asked questions regarding cut and fill, water quafity, and the environmental sustalnabili~ of the projem design. The applicants comrnented that the5, hope to be able to use the dirt from the excavation on-ske, rather than hauling it off-site: the presence of the ski ,hill provides an oppormmt-.~ ro do so. They also cornrnented that the quality of the water [caving the project will be better than what currently leaves the site; they have had to acquire discharge permits from the State. which mandate a ,higher water quality, and all effluent will be filtered before entering Maroon Creek. Even water fi:om the lower level of the parking structure :vill be pumped through a filtration system As for environmentally sustainable design, the project pla~mers incorporated several elements into the project design. The orientation of the site plan is intended to maximize solar gain, and the heating and cooling of the buildings in the core will operate off of a central plant with hot-water based heating systems. Additionally, all of the windows will include ener~, efficient ~azing. The landscaping in the village core aids in · the heating and cooling processes by providing sun and shade at the desirable times; also, the landscaping utilizes low-water species and is intended to minimize maintenance and chemical use. The applicants ,have undertaken efforts beyond what the code requires; they are conveying a larger open space parcel than they had to, and their comributions to the Maroon Creek intersection and other upper valley transportation problems far exceed what was required. Finally, transit considerations directed a lot of the site planning; the density and uses were incorporated with the intention of making it easy to live or stay there without having a car. 3mother environmental issue which the commissioners commented on was the applicant's use of TDKs, and the accompanying mitigation of off-site impacts. The applicants commented that acquiring these rights .has been much more difficult than they had anticipated. There are a lot of questions surrounding the title to a lot of the sending properties; also} the expectations of value for these rights is often inflated. Public Services The commissioners inquired about the types of commercial services which the project will provide residents and about the provision of municipal services. The applicants intend to find tenants to provide some basic services like groceries and drug store; they tried to get a pOst office, but the Postal service would not oblige, so they may have to settle for a central collection facility. As for municipal services, staffhas referred the proiect to all the requisite agencies (sanitation district, water and electric, county sheriff, fire protection district, etc.), and the agencies have all had ample opportunity to elicit from the applicant what would be necessary for the provision of services. Additionally, the applicant is paying taxes to the county in accordance with the anticipation of the provision of county services. Social Intcrac,~on One of the commissioners commented that the inclusion of prix, acy walls in the landscaping plans for the residential elements could be a double edged sword. On one hand, they do enhance the outdoor spaces for individual residents; on the other hand, they can discourage neighbors from interacting wi~h one another. The applicants commented that the ;anention of the wails is to screen the road; the overall project design is intended to maximize social interaction~ Motion David Guthrie closed the public hearing. ,-kt~er review of the criteria and staff's recommended scoring, the members of tlie GMC found that the staff scoring of the ,aspen Highlands Base Village request for multi- year metro area allotments met the threshold to qualify as an exceptional project; Roger Hunt moved to adopt staff scoring. Sara Garton seconded the motion and th~ commissioners voted 7-1 in favor ofk. Because the vote was not unanimous, it was necessary to repeal the motion and to score the project; Roger Hunt moved to do so, Steve Whipple seconded Re motion and the commissioners voted unanimously in favor of repealing the motion. GMC Scoring of the Highlands Base Village The members of the GMC individually scored the project and Lance Clarke tallied the scores and commented that they exceeded the minimum threshold: Category 1 4.75 Category 2 - 4,125 Category 3 - 3.6 Category 4 - 3.875. Motion Roger Hunt moved to accept the scoring for the multi-year metro area allotments based on the fact that the GMC had scored the proposal and found that the project exceeds the threshold criteria and that it is an exceptional project: Steve Whipple seconded the motion, and the commissioners voted unanimously in favor of it. The Source of the Allotments Lance Clarke suggested that the commissioners consider a staff recommendation of taking the allotments "offofthe back years" of the metro area allotment pool. In the interest of encouraging other potentially good projects to enter the approval process, staff hesitates m distribute too many of the cu~ent and upcoming allotments; if people ,know the allocations are out there, they are more likely to come forth with good projects - especially ,41-I and free market AH projects which are subject to the same allotment pool as the residential pomon of the Base Village. Because the Base Village started under the old growth management system (but was subsequently subjected to the current one), Roger Hunt inquired whether such action would affect any of the allotments granted under the old system; staff assured him it would not. Sara Gm'ton expressed the concerns of some of her fellow commissioners about shutting off projects on the back end. and Chartie Tarver concurred commenting that he would regret denying a single homebuilder coming in at the back end because those allotments had been granted to this development. Staffand the applicant's representatives reviewed the future effects of the proposed action and noted that it would affect the last two years of the ;4~H allotments and 4-5 years worth of free market ,-~I allotments. Chartie suggested that the proposalbe amended to minimize the effects on any one year and spread out the diminution of the allotment pool over more Time. and staff concurred. Steve ~3/3'tipple moved ro recommend to the BOCC that the Highlands Base Village multi-year allotments come "offthe back end" of the GMQS allotments and that the County leave some portion (a whole number) available in each category for each year, over a 6 year period. Roger Hunt seconded the motion and the commissioners v(~ted unanimously in favor of it OTItER BUSINESS Minutes of July 15, 1997 David Guthrie ~vished to strike the sentence about employee mitigation in the top paragraph of the last page. Charlie Tarver requested that the minutes reflect that the current conditions represented were not in accordance with the approved plan for the area. Motion Roger Hunt moved to approve the GMC Minutes of July !5, 1997 as per the suggested amendments; Sara Garton seconded the motion, and the commissioners voted unanimously in favor of it.