Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20091006Regular Meeting Asaen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 Minutes 2 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest 2 The Aspen Club 2 ReQUlar Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zoning Commission October 06 2009 LJ Erspamer opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Stan Gibbs, Cliff Weiss, Michael Wampler, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were present. Brian Speck and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow Community Development; Trish Aragon, Engineering; John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS LJ Erspamer sent a letter to City Council that requested all applications be submitted in digital forms. MINUTES The minutes were postponed until the next meeting. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jim DeFrancia was conflicted on the Aspen Club. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/29/09): 1450 Crustal Lake Rd -The Aspen Club Redevelopment Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Club. Jessica Garrow stated the last meeting Planning & Zoning had a number of questions regarding the traffic study as well as the Transportation Demand Management Plan so Trish Aragon, City Engineer, was present to answer any questions about the traffic study and John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh from the Transportation Department to answer any questions regarding the TDM Plan. Garrow handed out attachment A to the resolution, which is the Transportation Demand Management Plan and it was emailed to the commission today. Garrow said specific question were regarding enforcement of the TDM Plan, what are the National Standards for traffic studies, how the city asks applicants to conduct traffic studies, Crosstown Shuttle usage as well as background information on commitment the Club has made in previous land use proposals regarding transportation. Garrow said that some of those questions were answered in the memo and Trish, John and Lynn are present. LJ Erspamer said that traffic for the Aspen Club may be different than seasonal traffic for the tourist industry. Erspamer asked the busiest weeks at the Aspen Club. Michael Fox replied that their traffic was probably more driven by the members and most of the guests come in on shuttles from the hotels so the members tend to drive to the club. Fox said they were busy in the summer, in August, March and also October and November. Fox said they don't have the same traffic patterns as the city itself because of the nature of the ~` business; March and August were probably the peak times. Sunny Vann said the Club is `~ 2 Reeular 1Vleetin2 Aspen Plannin¢ and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 not being built tomorrow and these studies were done in August, 2008 and its baseline could increase closer to time of construction so we have a somewhat artificial level to meet based on any changes in the Club's utilization. Vann noted Michael said that he will hold the traffic level to a base level subject to a variety of mechanisms to do that; he will hold himself accountable to the baseline level to future measurement to ensure that what he is doing provides the information to the City then the City Transportation Department will make specific recommendations for corrective measures and if he stays out of compliance City Council will take whatever measures that may be appropriate. Vann said that the baseline level will be established. Erspamer said there were words "perpetuity" and "we envision" and were there any places where you want a more accountable word of perpetuity rather than envision and the question is you need to have something flexible enough so the applicant can make quick changes by addressing it to you so how do you -feel that we should use this verbiage in here. John Krueger said this was Michael's plan and Transportation added those comments to it and he said that we would like to say this is the plan 1, 2, 3. Krueger said so that we don't increase traffic from the baseline and here they are 1, 2, 3 that will be done, measured, reported on and if they don't work here are additional mitigation measures. Krueger recommended making it more specific to the point and Michael and his team have put together quite the plan with all sorts of good stuff and more than they have ever seen from any other applicant. Krueger said that you take it to the next level to get through to change the format to more specific plan with the elements and this is how we are going to do it. Vann said they have a solution; they envision the plan as describing how they were trying to deal with this project; they would not want to be held accountable to the language in the plan the way it is written because in some case it is pretty loose: Vann envisioned assuming that the basics of the plan are agreed upon by staff and ultimately approved by Council; there would be a Planned Unit Development with a higher level of specificity and the agreement states that it replaces the various resolutions and ordinances that approved the project because they are often not fleshed out enough to be able to judge conclusively what the impact is. Vann said that in the draft of the PUD Agreement they would take these various items in the plan and put them in "will" and "shall" type language based on the kind of comments; submitted and reviewed by community development staff and the city attorney and referred to transportation to see if we included all that we said that we would and that's what we would do. Krueger said that Michael should get a lot of credit for asking for the input, taking input and putting it in there and for the next step what Sunny was talking about was a great way to go. Erspamer said that this could be a recommendation instead of a condition to work on the plan a little more with John. Jim True responded that it was a Council ultimate decision. Trish Aragon asked if they were just talking about the TDM right now. Vann responded that they would do the specific design to your Engineering specifications. 3 Re¢ular Meetine Aspen Planning and Zonine Commission October 06, 2009 Bert Myrin asked the history of the Crosstown Shuttle and is there and was there an agreement to fund the Crosstown Shuttle and was that in response to a development '"'~` application. John Krueger said it went back to 1996-1997. Krueger said he didn't know `"" if it was an agreement when the tennis bubble went in or it was agreed that either payment towards the Crosstown Shuttle or their own shuttle and went back to Council and Council decided that it wasn't applicable or appropriate anymore. Lynn Rumbaugh said that it was in 2003 that they stopped contributing to the Crosstown Shuttle and were providing their own Shuttle. Myrin asked if the approval process in the 1990's was publically noticed. Rumbaugh replied yes. Myrin asked if was publically noticed when it was discontinued or did neighbors receive letters saying this would be discontinued. Krueger replied that it went to Council. Myrin voiced concern for the public process to put things in place and there is anon-public process to take them away. Krueger said that was a Council decision. Vann said the condition was agreed to prior to Michael's purchasing the Club from Buetera and there is no question that some things fell through the cracks but at some point Michael did go to Council to provide additional information as in the original conditions of approval and was permitted to substitute their own Shuttle for financial contribution to the Crosstown Shuttle. Vann said that he seriously doubted that that was sent to the neighbors within 300 square feet but in the particular case this TDM Plan is set up to replace all prior commitments regarding traffic management; the TDM has a specific set of conditions built in this PUD agreement and in order to amend that they would have to go through the land use code amendments. Myrin asked what the ""~` public notification process is to change something because it seems like a lot of things in ""'' this memo are between a City Department and the applicant down the road and if someone is relying on that as part of the land use application they have to continually monitor what's going on and it seems it fades into the background; the undoing is much easier than the doing. Vann responded that the land use code has separate several different layers of amendment for a PUD; and insubstantial amendment, which is something that's basically consistent with what was approved but you ran into an issue that was not originally contemplated to be reviewed by the staff level; there's an amendment that is consistent with the original approval that improves or doesn't degrade the original approval and that can go to P&Z; if it's totally different and you are trying to undo something basically you have to repeat the final PUD process in which it goes to P&Z and Council, that clearly has a public hearing notice. Vann said since this will be part of the requirements of the TDM and will be specifically spelled out in the PUD Agreement I doubt that staff would conclude that it were an insubstantial amendment to change those. Myrin asked if that would be included in the text of the resolution. Phelan replied that it has criteria and certain thresholds as to whether it was insubstantial or not and one of them is traffic generation. Garrow said and that bumps it up into the public hearing realm with P&Z on the traffic generation. Myrin asked did that happen with that Crosstown Shuttle. Fox said the amendment as it read in 1996 that we could either help A'' fund the Crosstown Shuttle, which still to this day runs to the Club or we can run our own ' " 4 Regular Meeting Asaen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 shuttle in lieu of helping fund the Crosstown Shuttle; in around 2002 or 2003 we decided that we would get much more utilization if we ran it ourselves and picked up people because the Crosstown Shuttle has a set route and wasn't getting much use outside of our employees. Krueger replied that the shuttle was an either or kind of thing; you either contribute money financially or you can run the shuttle and they ended up deciding to run the van themselves so it's not like they didn't comply. Myrin said that the parking lot showed some preferential spots for car pooling and his concern was that parking spaces were designed for one thing or another and the Jerome several years back converted employee spaces in the garage to non-employee spaces and so he was concerned about space being designated one thing and at one time and one at another and one another; is this land that you have control over as the city; is this carpool space or not. Krueger answered that he was not familiar with the parking spaces that Bert was referring to. Rumbaugh said there were standards were very effective whether or not that means Transportation have control over those spaces. Erspamer said that was for LEED certification too isn't it. Vann replied that generally they have to provide parking for various different components of the project for example we were providing 12 designated parking spaces so the onsite employee units can store their cars as an auto disincentive. Vann said as a condition of approval and material representation those are required to be provided; if a parking space was taken away for another use it was a typical land use enforcement issue. Cliff Weiss asked if RFTA, the Crosstown Shuttle or the Club privately considered running shuttles into the Crystal Lake Parking Lot side rather than up the Ute Avenue side. Fox said there was a shuttle that ran off the Crystal Lake side. Weiss asked if it was reasonably successful comparatively to the Ute side. Fox replied that it was the Mountain Valley shuttle that drops people off at 82 and Crystal Lake; some members use it. Weiss voiced concern from conceptual to final that this was taking on a lot of what it went through in 1996-1997; he doesn't like the concept of all the follow up and review and study after the fact. Weiss noted that Michael said it in this meeting that the 1900 members make up a lot of the vehicular traffic that come to the Club and he thought that if you build parking for them they will come. Weiss voiced concern for making it possible for members to drive rather than take the Crosstown Shuttle or Club vans; if you take away parking then they will have to use shuttles or van and he realizes that is tough for operating a Club membership but you have two businesses the Wellness and the 1900 Club members; all the traffic problem were being caused by the 1900 members. Vann said there was no increase in parking at 4 or 5 spaces and Council determined the appropriate level of parking; the level that is currently being generated by the Club plus that traffic to be generated by the addition does not significantly impact the street other than some people that who don't want people to drive past their house because it used to be rural; the safety improvements of people that are driving too fast and so forth and the 5 Regular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zonine Commission October 06.2009 trail, sidewalk and snow removal are being addressed at the expense of this applicant. Vann said the increase in traffic from our project is okay and not something to deny the ~"~ project on; the street is designed to handle it and there may be some improvements to the street that this applicant is required to do. Vann said they were facing a higher standard that was raised in part by neighbors that don't like the traffic that's there that Michael is volunteering and agreeing to correct and is trying to keep the traffic where it is today because he was sensitive to the neighbor's concerns. Garrow said that staff recommends approval of the two reviews that end with Planning & Zoning Commission; the growth management allotment of 12 affordable units and the stream margin review; the other reviews are reviews that the Planning & Zoning Commission has a recommendation on, which includes the SPA, Timeshare, PUD, and Rezoning. Staff does have concerns regarding the mass on the site specifically units 5 & 6, these relate more directly to the PUD and SPA Reviews that's why we are recommending approval of the 2 reviews that are with the P&Z but we ask that Council ask the applicant to make some changes potentially to the massing specifically of units 5 & 6. Garrow said they do believe that the project meets many of the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; we think that in terms of use that it is appropriate for the neighborhood; the main concerns are the mass and units 5 & 6. Weiss asked if units 5 & 6 was the mass or the location. Garrow said it was mass and scale and location of the units; 20 units is appropriate in terms of density count for the Timeshare but it is the mass of those 2 units. Garrow said there were a couple of changes to the resolution in redline format; one of the changes was the location of water service. The Water Department proposed a condition in section 6 of the resolution that outlines two options to ensure adequate flow for water flows for fire protection for the Club; Option B is to reestablish a looped water main connection through the project's site across the Roaring Fork River, this would require development and activity to happen in the stream margin area, which is why staff recommends not including that in the resolution. Staff feels very strongly that the Stream Margin area needs to be protected and that having a water line dug up and put in the stream margin defeats the purpose of the commitments has regarding the use of hand tools in the stream margin area and things like that. Weiss asked if staff wanted to run a water line up Ute Avenue. Garrow replied there was an existing one there; so option A was what the applicant needs to prove to the Water Department in a fashion that's acceptable to them that they can have adequate flows through the existing system. Weiss asked if this was a reasonable option and the applicant was aware of this. Vann replied yes. Vann stated that they have been having that discussion because they were trying to find a solution without crossing the river and the solution was determined that there were adequate Ute Avenue water fire flows. ~' 6 Regular Meetin¢ Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 Vann commented that with units 5 & 6 he wanted to know the concern registered by staff and it seems that it was not about the density in terms of the number of units but those ~.. two units in that location for the mass on the Club. Vann utilized power point slides to show the Aspen Club as it exists with the revised parking lot (less surface parking than currently exists) and showed where the new condos would be located; where the tennis bubble was and the Silver Lining Ranch, the Benedict Building, the current Aspen Club Townhomes and two fairly large single family residences that are on both sides of the pedestrian walkway and the revised walkway will come up between the units and up to the entrance of the Aspen Club. Vann said he did not understand how the massing was inconsistent; in some cases they are smaller than some of the single family and obvious less massive than the Aspen Club Townhome projects and considerable open space on this site and he finds it difficult from purely compatibility with the neighborhood because it is not visible from a public right-of--way. Van said it is visible from the pedestrian bridge which crosses over from Crystal Lake Road and it visible from the Aspen Club Trail primarily a seasonal point of view (more visible in the winter); so the idea in the PUD criteria was to make sure what is plotted down was compatible without adverse affects to the neighbors, the road and there were two objections from the two single family residences who don't want to look at anything across the river; there was no cry about the impact from this was a massing point of view from the neighborhood. Vann said that there were 4 or 5 sessions with P&Z and that's all that was talked about was the site plan and that is particular site plan is identical with the exception of some of the landscaping and patio areas to the site plan that was recommended by staff approval albeit they still had some lingering cogcems; thi was recommended for approval by P&Z and approved by City Council. Vann said that there were height restrictions on the units so they had no adverse effect on the riparian corridor so it seems it's mostly about visualizing the corridor from the Club. Vann said there were a variety of outdoor areas that can be used in the summer, which is probably the only time that they will be used and have created these openings so that you can still -see the corridor, you cannot see the river from the Club all you can see are the trees when in foliage and vegetation. Vann said they were not prepared to make any changes to that aspect of the site plan at this time; it is certainly within your discretion to either agree with them or have a different point of view or make a recommendation to Council of changes made at this time. Vann said the series to walkways to individual front doors and would be happy to talk to staff at a later date. Vann said the water feature was of concern to staff and it would be a nice feature but this project will not live or die because of it. Cliff Weiss asked if there was a problem with the path as it came across the bridge. Garrow replied there was not. Weiss said that if unit 6 went to unit 7 through 10 that the mass and scale would become more imposing and unit 5 went to units 1-4; so you wouldn't want to break up the two middle units and bunch them with the other two; is 7 Reeular Meetin¢ Asaen Plannin¢ and Zonine Commission October 06, 2009' that what you are trying to accomplish a view plane. Garrow replied it was one of the concerns was that connection to the riparian area and by placing units 5 & 6 that would cut that visual connection from the upper portion of the site to that lower portion with the river; having greater open space on that lower bench is something that staff would be an advocate for. Staff's objective is not to design the project and if the units on top of the Club were Club units then they would not have a problem with that but it was up to the applicant to design those units with perspective from staff. Stan Gibbs asked if there were traffic improvements or safety improvements on Ute Avenue in the application. Vann replied they are in back of the original TDM and in the rear of the traffic analysis. Gibbs asked in the proposed resolution if there was a reason on page 12 that the Section 4 that has the specifics in the TDM. Garrow responded that she would put that in the TDM. Gibbs asked if paid parking wasn't something that you would start off with but to encourage people to use the 14A, the west parking lot, as opposed to using lot 1; if you are a member and can park off the 82 side for free or you go up Ute and you have to pay for a parking place there. Michael Fox responded that he and Lynn Rumbaugh spent a lot of time brainstorming this and the only challenge with paid parking is that it is a very aggressive tax against our member who are struggling to use the Club and said that it was not fair to hit our hardworking local members who are trying to stay members of the Club the most in this process, which is why we held it out as a later item if the other measures don't work. Fox said that if we can shift 100% of our employees into this plan and 5% or 10% of the members into the plan we will achieve our goals. Gibbs said on page 12 "part a" doesn't make any sense to him because "part b" says it will be zero. Garrow said that it goes back to John Krueger's comments that it is not exactly clear throughout the entire plan what the applicant is committing to so John wants it to be incorporated into the PUD Document. Bert Myrin said that there was an attempt to do 50% for bus passes. Michael Fox replied that they have been doing 50% for the last 10 years. Myrin asked if he would consider going to 100%. Fox replied that they could look at that; their goal was to keep traffic growth to the project at zero. Myrin said that he was looking for solutions that don't have to be revisited down the road. Myrin asked who owns the lot on the 82 side. Vann replied they had a perpetual easement on that property. Weiss asked if there was only one below parking level in the garage. Vann replied yes because 2 were deep enough to go into the river plus they were not adding to the Club Parking. Weiss asked if there were 2 separate single level underground parking garages. Richard DeCampo replied there was an upper surface level which is what you saw on the site plan and below that there is one level of underground parking. DeCampo said it was on page 13 of the site plan sections. Garrow explained that staff asked the applicant to ~` look at 2 levels of underground parking to eliminate some of the surface parking and Regular Meetin¢ Asaen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 because of the water table and other site constraints they were unable to do 2 levels of underground parking so we are still with the surface parking that is there now and a new one level subgrade garage. Vann said the employee parking was below grade as a disincentive measure to use cars and the minimum number of parking spaces for the townhouse units in the subgrade garage and they expect that the Club Shuttle would take these owners to dinner or lunch quicker than they could take their rental car and park. Gibbs asked for a slide from a view from the Club at units 5 & 6. DeCampo used power point slides to show the existing parking and the proposed with the gap between units 4 and 5, those units were at the level of the underground parking garage because of the benches. DeCampo showed slides from different areas on the site. LJ Erspamer opened Public Comments: 1. Casey Puckett, public, said that he showed up in support of the project. Puckett said that the Aspen Club played a critical part in his career and it was a great asset. 2. Morgan Walsh, employee of the Club, said this was one of the few places in town that she could actually evolve throughout her career. Walsh said the Club employed about 200 people and there were several non-profits. 3. John McCormick, public, said that he has been watching the transformations of the Aspen Club since the late seventies and there was a vast improvement with what it offers to the community. McCormick said under the leadership of Michael Fox it is a greater benefit to the community. McCormick was in favor of the project. 4. Bruce Fritz stated that he was one of the homeowners on the Crystal Lake side of the property and their homeowners supported the project. Fritz said that units 5 & 6 were well placed. Fritz said the existing Aspen Club Townhomes were broken up with 9 connected and then the last 3 conned as designed by Fritz Benedict. 5. Alina Dodd, Aspen Club Sports Medicine, said there was an affordable housing opportunity. Dodd said with the new townhome units and updated health facility they could continue to bring world class programming to Aspen. Dodd said that she planned on living in Aspen forever and people her age (20s) are a big part of this community and this is a huge career opportunity for so many young professionals; she was 100% for this project and encouraged P&Z to be involved. 6. Pamela Herr stated she was in favor of the project. Herr said that between 55% and 75% she bikes or walks to the Club. Herr said that the facility seems to fit into the area and the employee housing units are very positive. 7. Pete Louras, lives in Mountain Valley, said that he was in sight of the Aspen Club and Spa and supported this project. Louras said that the Club and Spa was a very important amenity of the City of Aspen. Louras commended P&Z members and staff for their very challenging review on behalf of the City of Aspen and 9 Re¢ular Meetine Asaen Plannin¢ and Zonin¢ Commission October 06.2009 immediate neighbors of this project. Louras said that he read all the traffic commitments that Michael made and he hoped that staff and P&Z would hold him f-•., to those commitments. 8. Mindy Nagle, physician, said that she supports this project and there will be less space in this town for real true preventative healthcare maintenance. 9. Jeanette Darnauer submitted a letter and said that she represented several neighbors in the area with concerns that the application does not comply with the requirements of the SPA because it was a mostly residential neighborhood. Darnauer said in 2005 when the application was first submitted staff felt that the application should not be approved because it was not the ideal location for a lodge development. Darnauer said that the question was to ask if the expansion really does benefit the city in order for the land to be designed the flexibility for an SPA. Darnauer said their primary concern was the lack of teeth to enforce and mitigate the traffic plan that Michael has proposed; there were little or no enforcement measures for traffic even though the members and employees would be encouraged to do the right thing. Darnauer said they were concerned about the inconsistencies in the Shuttle Service proposed and there were no traffic target numbers that would trigger additional demand management tools. l0.Bi11 Hoffinan, owned and operated the Aspen Athletic Club for 23 years, said that he was always impressed with the quality of the operation at the Aspen Club, programming and constant updating to stay current with state of the art programs and fitness. Hoffman said to allow the Club to expand and grow would be a great benefit to the community and certainly supports the project. 11.Casey McCollum said nice job to Michael that he has been going through this process and Michael treats his staff, customers and investors with the utmost respect. McCollum said that this comes down to human beings doing what they say and this is a person that we can trust. McCollum said there was not a traffic issue and he walks to the Aspen Club; this project allows him to have a sidewalk so he doesn't have to walk on the street and would like to see P&Z support this project. 12.Marisa Post, executive director of Susan G. Komen for the cure, stated that the non-profit has their office in the Aspen Club and they have a 3 person office thanks for Michael's generosity. LJ Erspamer asked if P&Z was addressing vesting rights. Jessica Garrow said that was a Council review. Erspamer said P&Z ends with the Stream Margin Review and Growth Management. Erspamer said they send recommendations to Council for the final PUD, final SPA, Subdivision, Rezoning, Mutli-year Growth Management Review and final Timeshare. 10 Re¢ular Meetine Aspen Plannin¢ and Zonine Commission October 06, 2009 Garrow said that the Stream Margin has a 15 foot requirement from Top of Slope and then there is a 45 degree angle regarding height. Erspamer said that both of those have been met. Erspamer said the Growth Management for employee housing was 7 and they are providing 12. Weiss said that he supports the Aspen Club and it is in his mind a public amenity, a public benefit. Weiss said his concern was the traffic and it was not the neighbors on Ute Avenue but Ute Avenue itself; review and enforcement wasn't a matter of trusting Michael or employees of the Club; it was a matter of what happened in 1996-1997 and P&Z, Council and staff has turned over and much has fallen through the cracks. Weiss said a traffic solution was similar to what Council told you; we want less traffic. Weiss thought that you would have difficulties holding to present levels and would like to discuss further the routing of shuttles into the Crystal Lake Parking Lot that would alleviate a good deal of traffic on Ute Avenue. Weiss said that Stan brought an interesting point up on paid parking but paid parking was a disincentive to your Club members but helps him with this knowing that is the rule and to retain your membership in their habits. Weiss said as the TDM stands now P&Z is not making the tough decisions and doesn't have a problem with units 5 & 6. Weiss said that traffic is an issue all over town and Ute Avenue cannot really handle much more regardless of engineering studies and otherwise; he asked the applicant to look at the TDM and something that was enforceable from the get go and doesn't require review. Michael Wampler said he wanted to touch on the paid parking; the Silver Lining has a gate across their entryway and maybe it should be considered instead of charging for paid parking initially to put a gate up and allow members maybe 3 or 4 freebies a month but after that maybe a progressive charge for driving and parking there. Wampler said do the disincentive but do it with sugar instead of salt. Wampler said he was struggling with the public benefit and he complimented all the people who spoke but people who don't work for the Club or aren't members he did not see how this would benefit them. Wampler said that growth was defeated in elections and do we really need more condos and timeshares around here. Wampler said that he would like to see all the improvements that Mike Fox has talked about and see the Club improve and grow; look to the future and go into the prevention mode but do we have to finance it with building condos; are there other methods if they are going to do this one time and in 10 or 15 years down the road how will this get remodeled again: Cliff Weiss said there were only 6500 permanent members in the City of Aspen and he wasn't sure how many of the 1900 Aspen Club members are permanent residents but 11 Re¢ular Meetine Aspen Planning and Zonine Commission October 06 2009 with 200 employees and 1900 members it makes it pretty public; it was a big slice of the Aspen Community that use the Club. Weiss defended the Aspen Club as a public benefit. ~"" LJ Erspamer said the Club has always been considerate of the public. Bert Myrin agreed with Michael Wampler said about funding this in the future with existing property, which concerns him greatly. Myrin said that he was not convinced that selling a portion of the property off was a sustainable model. Myrin agrees with Cliff about a transportation system in place with some teeth that doesn't have to be revisited. Myrin said that he did not want transportation promises to disappear down the road or change. Myrin said his thoughts were to fund the Crosstown Shuttle and to fund 100% for employee bus passes rather than 50%. LJ Erspamer said the wellness idea is a great one but as you know he voted against this at conceptual so he is looking at the traffic issue and P&Z does not want to narrow down the traffic document that ties their hands or they put a lot of time and money into something and Council removes it. Erspamer said that maybe we could have some language on the TDM acceptable to the applicant and P&Z. Erspamer said that he doesn't have an opinion on units 5 & 6 but he would leave that to Council. Erspamer said that he was inclined to support this if the traffic study were done in the first two weeks of March or the first two weeks of August as a baseline. Cliff Weiss said that he did not think that this was a matter of language and did not want to pass this onto Council with an inadequate look at traffic. Weiss said that he was looking at the substance for solutions that he could hang his hat on and could feel good about moving forward with this that isn't going to require review or enforcement officer standing out on that street. Weiss said there were traffic benchmarks and to put something in place now that he feels good about. Bert Myrin asked about Mike Wampler's idea of a gate. Weiss said okay as long as there is a fee being charged for anybody using their car and that's a quick deterrent. Weiss said part of his concern about Ute Avenue was winter unless the City can widen that street. Weiss said they want to incentive employee parking at long term parking. Vann said the employee parking was in the garage for long term parking. Stan Gibbs said that units 5 & 6 were not an issue for him; he voted for this the last time and he doesn't see a lot of reason to change it. Gibbs said he had sympathy with Bert and Mike's question on the sustainability; using your capital selling off your land. Gibbs said the traffic thing was the big issue for him as well as most everybody else and personally he didn't think that P&Z could come up with the exact solution because they don't know ~" how it is going to work out. Gibbs said whatever P&Z puts in place has to be adaptable "~ 12 Re¢ular Meetin¢ Asaen Plannine and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 and that means there has to be review and enforcement; there has to be some process. Gibbs said he didn't have a problem with the City playing that role and the "°~ Transportation Department play that role; it was difficult to understand exactly what if they just don't and nothing works and the traffic keeps getting more and more, what do we do. Gibbs said do we start taking away parking spaces, is that really what we want. What if all the incentives didn't work; would the City do that or would the applicant do that. Gibbs said it was a matter of getting people to not use their vehicle. Gibbs said that when you are taking your car out you have to pay; maybe you get 10 freebies a month but that way every time you take that car out of the garage; so for people who have their cars there it's an issue and for members it's when you go there; so there are two different views of the transportation that are import to him. Gibbs said that he would like to see more creativity and more of those in place initially and Mike's idea is really good; so think about a member as a reasonable person goes out there 20 days a year maybe or 15 days and how many times do they want to take their car so that kind of proposal of 5 or 10 free times to park and that kind of a proposal would make a big difference to him. Erspamer agreed with the sustainability but it was not in their criteria. Gibbs said this property goes back a long way and so many of the things didn't happen and he does not want that to happen again. Myrin said it was a community benefit and if it is no longer there then it is not a community benefit. Vann stated that he hasn't heard any problems with the 2 reviews that P&Z is the final authority on; so he can assume for a moment that the Stream Margin and Growth Management for the Affordable Housing that P&Z has no problem with. Vann said there were different concerns for the recommendation portion of the review and it can be addressed in pieces. Vann said the majority did not see moving or getting rid of units 5 & 6. Bert Myrin was the P&Z member who was against units 5 & 6 on top of the Club. Vann said the Club needs to be fixed and go forward into the future but once the first fractional unit is sold these things are tied together forever because there is a group of owners and an amenity and an operation because the Club runs the units out of the front desk, it has to be there otherwise you have to revisit the whole approval and take the whole thing apart and do something different. Vann said once the units are built and sold the symbiotic relationship is there between the units and the Club for the well for seeable future. If Michael sold the Club the relationship between the Club and the units would remain. Weiss said that there were various options; if the Club deteriorates in 10, 15, 20 ~, years and requires remodel so the fractionals have some stake in the Club remaining but so do the 1900 member so you can't just level special assessment on your fractionals. ~... Vann responded that built into the operations of the fractional ownership component are 13 Reeular Meetin¢ Asnen Plannine and Zonin¢ Commission October 06.2009 monies to help sustain. Michael Fox stated that built into the fractional ownerships are the HOA fees and part of the HOA fees are replacement reserves so 10, 15, 20, 30 years down the road there would be money to upgrade the Club and the units; hopefully 30 years downs the road his kids would be running the Aspen Club and not him. Fox said that there was a symbiotic relationship because we need the Club and the members to make this work and all the things that we do today to make this work and need the units and the residential units to start sustaining the Club in the future and you have that part of HOA fees and part is replacement reserves that can be set aside to fund things like upgrades as you go down the road. Weiss asked if there was any part of this Performa regarding the HOA and dues and assessments. Erspamer asked Jim True if P&Z was going in the wrong direction because P&Z has no authority over his Performa. Weiss said he did not ask for the whole Performs but was there a dues and assessment structure. Jim True replied that you can't require him to provide that information and ask the question and it is consistent with the overall discussion on the sustainability as it relates to the community asset issue that's before you. True said that you can't require them to submit that kind of financial information; you can ask the question. Michael Fox said to answer Cliff's question it was just prudent operating efficiency to have part of HOA fees go into a reserve account; in most projects in town do it to some level or another and the question is doing it to the right level. Fox said the simplest was to set up a replacement reserve account from day one and make sure it tracks along with inflation. Erspamer said that the City is not excited about putting gates up. Jessica Garrow said that as a general rule there were not gates on public rights-of--way; if it's on private property maybe. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to extend the meeting for I S minutes seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. Erspamer asked for commissioners to state concerns to the applicant. Weiss said that he would vote no if there was not a TDM Plan that he can buy into. Vann said that they had to submit the final Timeshare documents that include everything prior to submission for building permit; they have not gone to the expense of figuring out the repair and reserve replacement but have a concept of how this is supposed to work. Vann said the transportation was the big issue and they were trying to commit to something that's higher. Vann said to get to the solution he did not think that it would fit everybody here. Vann said you could make a recommendation to support the project and Council will ultimately arbitrate this and so whatever we come up with maybe subject to change by them; so maybe the solution is your concern for the plan to be revised to include some kind of specific action from the get go to include something like for example shifting the route of the shuttles but he did not think that they could sit here and ~-~, 14 Regular Meetine Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 come up with specific ones that all of P&Z will agree on. Myrin said that he tended to agree with Michael and Cliff and everyone on whatever was most restrictive and let ~""~ Council decide. Vann said that he thought there was a consensus to recommend approval subject to the TDM Plan be amended to include "x, y, z" and that's the basis for your recommendation for approval that's fine with us. Vann said that they probably would not move the shuttles over to the Highway 82 side. Erspamer said that we could require it and condition it and let Council do what they want with it. Weiss stated that he doesn't like shifting the debate from here to there. Weiss said that he was not willing to send it to Council without debating it and there was nothing in Conceptual on the traffic either. Vann said that requires him to consent to what you want. Weiss said it require the applicant to come back and bring some teeth. Vann said tell me which teeth you want. Weiss said that he told Vann some but you had reasons against them. Michael Fox said that he understands where you are coming from; his main concern is that they sat down and worked with the experts on traffic, which is the City Transportation Department on this plan and Jessica and Lynn and John came out and said that this was the most comprehensive Traffic Demand Management Plan that they had ever seen. Fox said that one of the key points that he and Lynn spent a lot of time on is making sure there's flexibility in the plan to achieve the goal; the goal is not increasing traffic to the project. Fox said he understands specific demands but there were operational reason why the shuttles on the Crystal Lake side would not work if they are not convenient people are not going to use them so now we've got shuttles running to the other side of the Club when it's easier for people to drive to the front door. Fox said they were not here to come up with a solution and not ever look back and say did that work or not work; the City has agreed to be the most thorough and comprehensive Traffic Demand Management Plan they have ever seen, public or private. Fox said this was a plan that does have teeth and has recourse over time that we can keep looking back and say what's working and what's not working and we can't say this is what we are going to do forever defeats the purpose because the goal is not to sort of punish our members by putting paid parking in; the goal is to reduce traffic and create a set of tools that allow us to go do that and test and see what works and what doesn't work. Fox said the goal of no traffic increase, the goal of yearly reviews of this sitting down with the Transportation Department in what works and what doesn't in achieving their goal. Fox said that if they are not, then what are we going to change; that's the kind of plan that they should have and these guys helped us design. Richard DeCampo said as a former physical therapy patient through the Club he would not want to be parking on the Crystal Lake side or taking a shuttle he would want to get as close as possible to the front door; there was a need to be able to go to the front door. Vann said the debate was over the initial thing and you don't think that it is going to work and therefore it has to be revisited; the plan was designed to be revisited so the difference 15 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 06, 2009 here is what should be in there to start with; you could recommend the plan from the get ~. go. Erspamer asked Cliff what the criteria was to support this project; paid parking and shuttles to the 82 side. Weiss replied he was missing what he was trying to do here; you are not going to get me to vote yeah on this tonight and if you want to take this debate to Council it will beano vote tonight; he didn't know if any of these recommendations hold water or not; it wasn't his idea to come up with paid parking, he thought it was interesting. Weiss suggested that maybe the Crystal Lake side might make more sense for various reasons but he could be convinced otherwise but that what is important here is you won't take this debate away from this commission and bring it to council not easily. Weiss said that if this isn't continued for two weeks he will vote no. Erspamer asked Bert what it would take to gain his support for this project for the next meeting. Myrin said the 100% funding for employee bus passes rather than 50%; the funding the Crosstown initially rather than a fallback position (as a replacement to Club Shuttles); units 5 & 6 be moved or removed (but he is alone on that); support Cliff or anyone else on Traffic Demand Management tools; and the sustainability, this is a community benefit to him and needs to around forever; he was concerned about selling off parts to develop something. Gibbs said the aspect of the HOA fees has made him more comfortable; the SPA and PUD definitely talk about sustainability as an issue and as a valid point but won't make a difference to him. Gibbs said that he was trying to be realistic and think about the traffic issue; if you don't put some things in place that actually make it a disincentive to drive whether you are an employee, a timeshare owner or a member; if you don't actually put some disincentives in place it isn't going to happen and what will be put in place immediately is not enough; he liked to see more. Gibbs said the shuttles should be on Ute Avenue and the cars on 82. Jessica Garrow said the next meeting date was scheduled for October 20"'; the issues that she heard were all TDM and traffic related and that's what the memo would focus on for the next meeting and see if Lyrm and John could attend. Erspamer asked what will they do about sustainability. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the meeting to October 20`"; Stan Gibbs seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. P& adjo r d at 7:20 pm. ckie Lot ian, Deputy City Clerk d,-, -'~, ti .~ 16