Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.01162002 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2002 Location: Health and Human Services Building 3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING Land Use Code Revisions 7:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED APRIL 24, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JOINT SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAND USE CODE REVISIONS JANUARY 16, 2002 NOTE: ALL STAFF MEMORANDUMS, LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RELATED EXHIBITS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS FOR 2002 ARE COMPILED AT END OF THE LAST MEETING WHICH WAS HELD ON APRIL 23, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mick Ireland called a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 3:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mick Ireland, Dorothea Farris, Shellie Roy, Patti Clapper and Jack Hatfield PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Martin, Paul Resnick, Peter Thomas, Michael Augello and Chairperson Ireland said that tonight's meeting is a special meeting for consideration of proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, which is specific discussions with respect to the Urban Growth Area proposed zoning changes associated with telecom/radio/television, urban tourist, mixed use, and affordable housing. CONSIDERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMISSION OVERLAY ZONE (TEL DISTRICT) Marcella Larsen Chilsen, Assistant County Attorney, proceeded with her presentation associated with the proposed amendments under consideration tonight. Brian McNellis, staff planner, proceeded to review a map showing the existing sites that have been previously approved in the county (through special review) along with proposed sites (recommended by private cell providers) for future telecommunication towers. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 9 Mr. McNellis said that this proposed plan is only a preliminary plan, pending more work with the BOCC, P&Z and providers, before a final plan is brought forward for adoption. Peter Martin, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, requested that cell tower locations be looked at in the Crystal River Valley. Ms. Chilsen continued with her presentation associated with this matter. She pointed out a typo in her draft with respect to utility lines. She explained that utility lines are a permitted accessory use and special review is not required. Additionally, a contractor's office is available as a temporary use, should one be required. Paul Rudnick, Planning and Zoning Commission member, commented that he thinks utility lines should be deleted from the zoning section of the code. Ms. Larsen responded that she thinks it might just be a question of organization of the code. She thinks it would be entirely possible to delete utility lines as a use as long as how they were actually installed is addressed through the development standards. Secondly, she said utilities are not allowed in all zone districts i.e. the rural and remote zone district, which requires a special process for extending utility lines. She explained that people do need to understand that when they are doing construction that utility lines constitute a use and there are standards that are associated with that use. Commissioner Hatfield asked that language be added that addresses the number of towers that can be co-located in one place. Chairperson Ireland said a decision will need to be reached, amongst the two boards, on whether direction should be given to staff as whether we prefer to see multiple small towers or fewer bigger ones? Paul Resnick suggested that he would support some sort of height limit with a process by which the tower could be added onto, but it would not be a permitted use process, rather a special review process to allow additional feet past the 50 feet height limitation. After a discussion it was agreed that if someone wants to exceed the height limitation, or request more than one tower, the requirement would be a special review process. It was agreed that the maximum height and number would be continued pending further analysis of these issues. A discussion ensued with respect to the visual impacts associated with cell towers. Representatives of cell phone providers commented that they think the towers should be very site specific and the providers understand that the code has strong esthetic concerns and these concerns should be addressed in the development standards. Staff was directed to draft criteria that will handle the visual considerations as a development standard. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 3 One of the providers explained that two towers, within a 100-foot radius, could have the potential of interfering with one another. She asked that this issue be taken into consideration when discussing limiting the number of towers to a certain radius due to visual considerations. Commissioner Roy commented that because there are a total of six providers, she would urge the two boards to come up with development criteria to eliminate the potential of having to hear a number of special review applications. Ms. Chilsen asked the board for direction with respect to the issue of allowing continued use of antenna mounts on existing buildings within the zone? She explained that the current draft does not allow for this possibility. Lance Clarke, Deputy Community Development Director, said the only approved antenna, on a building, that has been approved is located at the hospital. However, there may be ones that never came through the process and don't have permits. He said the existing code requires any radio transmission tower type thing to go through special review. Chairperson Ireland commented that in the past, the board has heard from several neighborhood groups that they did not want antennas close to their residences, even if they are below the height limitation and are not visible. A few commission members agreed that these towers should be allowed if they are below the 28-foot height limitation and cause no visual impacts. However, because there was not a consensus, it was agreed that discussion on this issue should be continued pending further analysis of the issues. Representatives from cell phone providers offered comment for the record. Providers were encouraged to work with staff on suggestions for other sites that might be appropriate for these types of devices. Mark Gamrat, Pitkin County Communications Director, requested that a public safety exemption be allowed to install small communications equipment in the rural and remote zone. URBAN TOURIST ZONE DISTRICT Ms. Larsen continued with her presentation, associated with the proposed Urban Tourist District zone, as outlined in staff s written presentation. Cindy Houben commented that she does not think it would be appropriate to consider this zone district in Redstone because of their master plan. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 Commissioner Roy suggested that the Heatherbed Lodge should be included in the Affordable Housing Zone District. It was agreed that if this were to happen that the Inn at Aspen would be the only fractional ownership facility included in this proposed district. Paul Rudnick stated that to create a new zone district for one piece of property, putting aside the legal issues strikes him as not a good idea. He suggested that this particular piece of property would be better zoned as rural tourist district. Most of the commissioners agreed, based on Mr. Rudnick's suggestion that the appropriate zone for the Inn at aspen, would be a single rural tourist zone district. Staff was asked to work closely with the City on scenic issues along the Highway 82 corridor with respect to fractional ownership i.e., the Inn at Aspen. Ms. Larsen noted that the references to fractional ownership are meant to refer to what is traditionally known as timesharing not the fractional type ownership of condominiumization. MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT Ms. Chilsen proceeded with her presentation associated with this proposed district as outlined in her written presentation Herb Klein suggested language to say that if you have a parcel (such as the parcel behind Berthod Motors) that was otherwise fully developed, you could apply AH zoning or some type of AH (I 00 percent affordable housing) to an existing undeveloped portion of the property and create affordable housing unit there, which would not be deemed non- Conforming. And the remaining free-market parcel (existing free-market units) would also be deemed to be conforming. He said Cindy Houben suggested, since the board is about to get started on the code-rewrite, that this be brought up during this process. John Ely, County Attorney, stated that he thinks this suggestion is a good one, especially for the kind of in fill and for affordable housing, and is exactly what the county is looking For. He said the portion of the code to deal with the creation of this lot is in the subdivision exemption part of the code. Paul Rudnick said he thinks that light industrial should be added as a use to this district. A discussion ensued with respect to existing housing being classified as non-conforming as a consequence of its definition of an accessory use. Commission members expressed that they want to protect the existing housing, including the existing free-market from being somehow becoming non-conforming as a consequence of its definition as an accessory use. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 leo Commissioner Ireland said he wants the creation of new housing to be accessory, but he does not want to see l: Free-market as an principal accessory use out there other than what exists he said his question for staff is can we protect the existing housing, yet make new proposals be accessory? Ms. Houben said this zone district needs some further work. She said some of the suggestions that have come forward, is to look at a percentage of use within each parcel. Look at what percentage should be dedicated to light industrial, business or housing. And look at a percentage that really promotes the whole concept of horizontal zoning. Chris Tolk commented that everyone needs to keep in mind that the only mixed use is at the Airport Business Center. He said he has heard a lot about affordable housing, but somewhere we need to say that we're going to keep this area and we are going to make it for business and we're committed to do that. So by talking about in fill and talking about accessory uses, etc. he said what can we do to make sure that the businesses stay and not drive them away. Paul Rudnick said he thinks the goal of maintaining the business integrity of the ABC is laudatory, but he thinks it would be foolish, on our part, to try and micro-manage the economics of that property. He said the market place is going to determine more appropriately than we can what the best uses are out there. The idea of setting up certain percentages, he thinks, would be a terrible idea. Commissioner Hatfield said he agrees the comments about trying to keep the integrity of the business element out there. It seems appropriate that would be a very reasonable place to continue to encourage the business community to locate. John McBride, owner of the Aspen Airport Business Center, raised a number of concerns about the uses listed in the proposed zone district and whether or not they are comprehensive enough to include all of the existing uses at the ABC. Additionally, he said he has a concern with respect to adding additional FAR. He said he thinks the business center is pretty much through with development. Commissioner Ireland asked Mr. McBride if he is opposed to the idea of up-zoning this property to allow more FAR? Mr. McBride responded that there are about 25 different owners out there and they should all be part of that discussion. He said (personally) he thinks that by up zoning the property it would result in sacrificing some of the nice character that it has. And long before that happens, the streets should be made one way and pedestrian areas added to the streets, he further said that he thinks a change like that should be looked at with a top urban planner. Commissioner Clapper said she thinks we need to look at a workable density to provide some more housing at the ABC and possibly associated with some more business space. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 She also thinks that the pedestrian issues are very valid and the reconfiguring of the two existing entrances is a key point for her. As far as the percentages of use she thinks the need will determine what those percentages be rather than us determining what the need is. Commissioner Roy said she would like to play a little bit more with the density because she does not know what the appropriate density is out there. She said there are many one-story buildings that could easily have an affordable housing unit on the top. Also, the parking is in very bad shape out there. Some of the buildings are older and potentially may be due for being torn down, in which case, underground parking could be built at that time. She said in other words, there is a lot or' room out there to play. She is also reluctant to go with a set percentage. John McBride said their covenants allow a number of different businesses that have their own FAR, which is something that the board shouldn't forget. And those cannot be change without two-thirds of the votes of all the business people out there. Additionally, there is the county zoning. So anybody coming in has to go through that. And if they want to move they have to again go through the county process. It was the consensus of commission members that they want to encourage a mix of employee housing with the RO category housing. Evan Gall said he has to leave to attend another meeting, but he will forward his comments onto the county for consideration. After a discussion most of the commission members agreed that this property would benefit from being separated from the entire code re-write pending further planning with the owners and the city to address the issues i.e. parking and traffic. Therefore, consideration was deferred for two months on this particular zone district pending more satisfactory information to enact a zone district at that time. John McBride reiterated his request that the nature of the zone district is going to be changed that we consider bringing in a top planner. He suggested a proposal that possibly the owners could pay half of a consultant's fee and the county pays the other half. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISTRICT Ms. Chilsen proceeded to go through the issues associated with this proposed district as outlined in her written presentation. A discussion ensued with respect to whether or not the urban growth boundary should be extended or spiraled into rural areas. Commissioner Hatfield said he feels that the Afl zone should be limited to within the urban growth boundary. If we are going to define rural and urban and the area between the two, which is within the urban growth boundary, that works for him. He said he is BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 real concerned about an across the board height limitation. He thinks every site speaks for itself so lie would rather have a special review on a case by case basis because every site is different. Additionally, he said there is less need to build R/O housing and he would never want to make R/O mandatory for a project. He thinks this is also a site planning issue. Planning and Zoning Commission member Peter Martin, said there is a hard-fought for policy statement that will permit the possibility of housing outside the urban growth boundary. Planning and Zoning Commission member said lie is in full agreement with Commissioner Hatfield. He said he does not think employee housing belongs outside the urban growth boundary. He thinks to place it there would be a strain on services, more people on the road, and would create sprawl. Cindy Houben said people are correct about what the interim housing plan says. However, as staff, they had to come up with their professional opinions on the way it should go and staff is in support of the urban growth boundary as a hard line for additional affordable housing. Commissioner Farris said she thinks we need to address the issue of transit oriented development that may be appropriate somewhere. Commissioner Roy commented that she is not ready to close the door and say there will be no affordable housing developed outside of the urban growth boundary. She thinks there are instances where it is appropriate and it could be designed in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent areas. She suggested that we look at an affordable housing option that is not of the denseness of the proposed design, but that could be integrated into the less urban areas of the county in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Ireland said he does not think that free-market housing can be approved outside of the boundaries if affordable housing is not given the same consideration. He thinks the AH district, within the urban growth boundary, should be an overlay that a property owner can evoke without having to have a rezoning process. URBAN RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING Ms. Chilsen proceeded to go through the issues associated with this proposed district as outlined in her written presentation. Commissioner Roy said site has a problem with one or two acre zoning because it is too close together to achieve the feeling of open space but is too far apart to provide any of the city amenities in an economical fashion i.e. busses. She said if we are serious about moving the intensity into the urban growth boundary then what are these very low dense suburbs doing in this urban growth boundary (on the proposed map) and will it in that, get us where we want to go'? She asked everyone to consider this issue. In other words, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 she said how far do we want to go with the boundary and what makes sense to achieve what we are trying to get to. Commissioner Ireland commented that when we are adding density to a neighborhood that it should take more TDR's to create a free-market on the site than to create affordable housing on the site. Ms. Chilsen said the affordable housing would be an absolute exemption. Herb Klein expressed a concern about the non-conforming use section, which applies across the board to all zoning districts. But it would be especially problematic in the urban area where you have so much build out of houses many of which are considerably larger than the 5750. He does not see how lenders are going to be able to lend, appraisers doing appraisals or insurance companies are going to insure when people cannot rebuild the structure they have if it burns down. He said he wonders of the board knows all the ramification of this legislation? Commissioner Ireland said this issue will be on the list for future discussion. Mr. Klein said the way the proposal is written it would make all properties non- conforming that have more than one residence on the fathering parcel. It was agreed that this issue also will be discussed further. Joe Wells commented that he does not know where the county is headed on issues like the slope production formula. So until he really knows the full picture, it's a little difficult to assess what and what cannot come forward. Ms. Chilsen said the entire issue of slopes would be addressed in the development standard section of the code, which is not done. Brooke Peterson said he would like to echo want Herb Klein said. He has spoken to lenders, appraisers and insurers who expressed the same concerns about the non- conforming language in the draft of the code. Additionally, they expressed a concern about the issue of how FAR is to be measured within the urban growth boundary on the existing developed parcels given the language regarding the inability to do anything when you replace your property other than using the existing footprint. Bonnie Eubanks submitted a letter for the record outlining her concerns. It was the consensus of commission members that the issues raised at this meeting will be discussed further at the next meeting. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue the public hearing to February 6, 2002. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 16,2002 9 es ectfully su itt , OW aneyyttte�e Joo-nes, eputy County Clerk �( � r� Patti Kay Clapper, Chairperson Board of County Commissioners BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY I6,2002 I�