HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20091020City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
COMMENTS ...........................................................................2
MINUTES ...............................................................................2
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................2
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD - APSEN CLUB REDEVELOPMENT,
FINAL SPA and ASSOCIATED REVIEWS .....................................2
City Plannine & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm.
Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Brian Speck, Bert Myrin,
Mike Wampler and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia was excused. Staff present were
Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Cliff Weiss said that Bill Weiner asked for 10 minutes of P&Z for an undisclosed
presentation regarding the Lift One COWOP. Jessica Garrow said that Bill Weiner
was no longer interested in making that presentation.
MINUTES
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the September 15, 2009 minutes;
seconded by Stan Gibbs, all in favor, APPROVED
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the September 29, 2009 minutes;
seconded by Mike Wampler; all in favor, APPROVED.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jim DeFrancia recused himself from the Aspen Club hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD - APSEN CLUB REDEVELOPMENT
FINAL SPA and ASSOCIATED REVIEWS
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jessica Garrow emailed a supplement
exhibit and she entered it into the record, Exhibit O, minutes from the July 14,
2008 where City Council reviewed and voted on the conceptual approval.
Garrow said that Lynn Rumbaugh could not attend this meeting but they have
discussed the transportation aspects in length and most of the comments were
incorporated into the memo. On page 2 itemlb should be "from Ute Avenue";
staff believes the shuttle should run along Ute Avenue unless there is an additional
study that explains why they should be moved to Highway 82. The memo outlines
the various proposals that the commission made regarding transportation elements
with responses from the planning staff as well as transportation staff. What was
not included in the memo is a discussion of the sustainability and permanence of
the Club and was a concern that was raised at the past two meetings. Garrow said
there was not a tool or recommendation that the city can legally do. If this
application is approved the applicant will be tied and the property will be tied to a
very specific development plan for club use, affordable housing and timeshare.
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
Garrow said if the club, Michael or any future owners wanted to change that they
would be required to go through the same process that they are going through
today, which in all likelihood a four step process to P&Z and Council for
conceptual depending upon the scope or something more minor would just be a
two step for P&Z and Council for a consolidated review. Garrow said it would
require time, money and effort on their part in order to make any changes from
what has been approved.
Garrow said that she and Jim True have talked about the Silver Lining Ranch; the
property adjacent to the Aspen Club is zoned academic and conservation with an
SPA overlay; the SPA is very specific with uses approved for this property are
non-profit uses that help children with terminal diseases. Andrea Yeager, Silver
Lining Ranch, when she decided to move her foundation to Durango she came into
the city twice requesting a de-annexation so that property could be reverted to a
single family use and both times staff and City Council said no, you cannot do that
and did not recommend in favor of this. After that the Jewish Community Center
came in to amend that process of the SPA. Garrow said for this property there
would need to be an amendment to the SPA and PUD.
Garrow presented a large board with the specific reviews noting the top two that
end at P&Z, stream margin review and 12 for affordable housing and club use.
Garrow said that if anything were to change they would need to go through a very
lengthy and detailed land use process; that is staff's response to the sustainability
and permanence piece that has been coming up. The bottom 6 are the reviews that
P&Z is a recommending body to City Council; part of the recommendation was the
growth management with 124 allotments for lodge and staff recommended that 112
come from this year and 12 from the next year.
Cliff Weiss asked why staff said moving the shuttle from Ute Avenue to Crystal
Lake side is not acceptable to them. Garrow replied that there were 2 pieces of
this; the Crosstown Shuttle is a no way no how that should not be moved from Ute
Avenue because it serves other developments and it is a detailed route in terms of
the background research and why it is where it is. Garrow said she thought the
club shuttle was what P&Z was referring to when this came up. Weiss said no he
was referring to both. Garrow said that the Crosstown Shuttle that would have to
be approved by City Council moving because it has lengthy studies and it serves
other things. Garrow said the Club Shuttle is something where the transportation
department doesn't feel that is in their purview because they haven't done usage
patterns of the shuttle; considering it as a future option in the monitoring section so
look at the usage patterns of the Aspen Club Shuttle. Garrow said that Michael has
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
said this is where I need the shuttle to operate and this is where my users are and it
was worked into the monitoring section as an option to move it over to Ute Avenue
and was something that transportation and planning staff would be okay with but
without further study they were not comfortable with it. Brian Speck said not to
forget the handicapped. Weiss said that he never included therapy or there can be
exceptions. Weiss said that you started out by saying that staff doesn't recommend
moving the shuttle and now you are saying it really has a lot more to what they
have been monitoring and they would be open to it as long as monitoring was
changed along with it. Garrow said that they were saying they think that the
shuttle works as it is now and if was going to be changed we would need to see a
pretty good reason why it would change access points and that's why if you want
to put it into the monitoring section, that's fine but for something to be
implemented now we don't feel it makes sense. Weiss asked who "we" was.
Garrow responded transportation and community development staff.
Sunny Vann said that they were not proposing to present anything further at the
moment and we will be happy to answer any questions; if there was something
more let him know. Vann said they also brought the former slide show.
LJ Erspamer said the process was looking at number 1 and 2 stops here and P&Z
did not seem to have any problems with those. Erspamer said the other 6 have
their own criteria for judgment such as traffic study. Erspamer asked P&Z if they
would like to vote on them all at once. Stan Gibbs said there was only one
resolution to pass so we can take a straw vote if you want is there an issue here that
we need to discuss; he said he didn't think that P&Z could take multiple votes.
Garrow said that she brought the laptop projector with the resolution on it for any
changes that need to be made; the redlines included in the resolution are still in the
version that can be projected and there was one other change to the resolution to
highlight.
Stan Gibbs said that in number 3 TDM ideas you say staff does not believe paid
parking is an effective tool to begin with, can you explain why you say that.
Garrow answered the reason that we feel that is it is a huge stick and the TDM Plan
is comprised of both carrots and sticks. Garrow said one of the carrots is paying
for the bus pass, trying to encourage people to get out of their cars and the way that
Lynn and John have gone about this particular TDM Plan is trying to make sure
that there are incentives first and if that doesn't work then go to the more
restrictive measures. Garrow said it was included in the monitoring measures if
you do not make it acceptable that's when you institute paid parking but you don't
institute it first because we are not sure exactly how the Club is going to operate,
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
what the traffic patterns would look like, which users would have more car use for
instance and we would want that information before we say you have paid parking
across the board. Garrow said that it might be a situation where you might want to
target paid parking. Gibbs said the choice of adjectives is not good because, I
think it would be effective that's why everybody doesn't want to do it because it
would be effective but you were saying it is not measured or enough or it's not
considered enough for what the applicant wants to do and it confused him that staff
was so much of an advocate for the applicant. Gibbs said that you have a fine line
to walk but he doesn't like to hear it so blatantly because they really don't want to
do it and P&Z was here to decide what was best for the city. Garrow stated that it
was hard to be in the position to speak for the transportation department and she
said she was sorry if it comes out. Erspamer explained that these people have
worked together for 2 years and it isn't that staff gave them everything that they
wanted; they have gone back and forth with real discussions and debate. Michael
Fox said the paid parking was not their issue; the transportation plan was not their
transportation plan, they spent 6 months working with the transportation
department to come up with that plan. Fox said the city staff said to hold the paid
parking in reserve because it was a pretty big stick to throw at people; if we can get
there another way let's get there other ways. Vann said let's make sure why we are
concerned about it; it's not just that we don't to do it; we are trying to make the
Club a sustainable benefit to the community at large, a substantial amount of club
members were locals. Vann said this was like a regressive tax; the wealthy club
members and absentee owners won't care if it's ten dollars or twenty, it doesn't
matter but the local guy is the most adversely affected. Vann said we wind up
running off people that we are trying to serve and send them out to the ARC where
they can park for free. Vann said this was about a balanced approach, if we simply
can't solve what he (Michael) is committing to which is to hold traffic at current
levels, then it probably becomes an effective tool and we will have to look at the
implications but to start right off the bat seems to be counterproductive to what the
basic idea behind the whole project is to start with. Gibbs said that we have had
this discussion before; it was the tone and the way it was presented from staff that
he didn't think was really on the mark; he said that it should have been stated that
the plan has been developed over many years and many hours of work and we
don't feel at this time that it is an appropriate measure to take. Gibbs said that
would have been straight forward and he can understand; he said that he wasn't
trying to beat up on staff. Garrow replied that both from planning staff perspective
as well as transportation staff perspective this TDM Plan goes farther than any
other development that they have ever seen; it is the most detailed, most
comprehensive and it is something that over all we think is good. Garrow said this
memo was responding to the concerns that P&Z has raised and staff's concerns
5
City Planning & Zonine Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
regarding mass and scale are still valid; she wanted to make sure that was clear; it's
just not an issue that P&Z is concerned with any longer.
Weiss said that it was interesting that paid parking right out of the bat as a
disincentive; the 42 additional parking spaces is an incentive for more traffic right
out of the bat. Vann responded they do not have a choice to ask for it, it was
regulatory, they were not increasing parking for the club members; the rest of the
parking was a requirement of the code; as a general rule we don't ask to be
exempted and are trying to comply with the code. Vann noted the employees that
have cars can park them in the parking garage. Vann said there were a couple of
spaces in front of the employee units because employees have friends that come to
visit, deliveries that get dropped off; the only parking that is really an increase per
say is the ones that are required for the fractional ownership units. Vann said that
you could recommend that there be no parking for the fractional ownerships that
would reduce it by 20 spaces, would that be a disincentive for people driving,
probably doesn't make any difference in the winter because the people occupying
those units probably wouldn't be renting or driving a car; those in the summer yeah
there might be some people in those units who have cars. Weiss said you could not
build spaces, you could use the ones you have for Club membership and use those
for the fractional; you are building a real estate development out there so to throw
the code back at me and say that you need more parking because the code requires
it; that's kind of like a dog chasing his own tail. Weiss said that he feels if you
build 43 more spaces you are going to have additional traffic out there and that
your plan has not really addressed that; you stated that you would keep to previous
levels or lower and he doesn't see it that way.
Bert Myrin expressed his concerns for 100% funding for bus passes for employees.
Michael Fox answered that they have looked at that in the past and one of the
challenges they face if they subsidize 100% because unless you have some buy in
by the participants they may take them and not use them; and they find having
employees at least paying a piece of it they are going to use it. Fox said they get
more compliance by subsidizing 50% then you sometimes do subsidizing 100%.
Myrin said that makes sense so he withdrew that concern.
Myrin voiced concern with the notification process that if something changes with
the Crosstown Shuttle has changed previously; people rely on that and later that's
changed. Fox said in the original approval they were given an either or approach;
either we provide our own shuttle or subsidize the Crosstown Shuttle. Fox said
that they were getting a lot of calls for pickups that were not convenient for the
Crosstown Shuttle, especially physical therapy and we get better utilization with
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
our own shuttle that we could pick people up on a point to point basis. Fox said
that that point they said that they would provide their own shuttle instead of
subsidizing the Crosstown Shuttle. Fox said so we have our own shuttle and the
Crosstown Shuttle; so it wasn't anything they changed; it was always the option
that they could do either one. Erspamer said that his fear was duplication; empty
ones going back and forth; how may point to point physical therapy do you foresee
a day. Fox replied that Lynn and he spent a lot of time, 10's and 100's of hours on
the transportation plan and the concept behind the plan was creating an organic
entity; the goal not being to force people to do this or that; the goal is to reduce the
traffic or keep traffic levels the same or reduce them on Ute Avenue. Fox said and
creating an organic set of tools to do that; they adjust empty shuttles, they can
adjust that with programs and look at lot of different tools towards managing the
overall goal, which is keeping trips on Ute Avenue the same or lower than they are
today. Fox said the goal is not to punish people, not to beat up our locals that drive
to the Club, the goal is to reduce traffic on Ute Avenue or keep it at a level where it
is today due to this project and create a comprehensive set of tools that's organic
and flexible; they will be in constant contact with the transportation department in
monitoring this project.
Brian Speck asked why the water feature was recommended to be eliminated.
Erspamer replied that it was a staff recommendation. Vann said they thought it
had positive benefits with a white noise feature for some of the outdoor exercise
but if that's a make or break on this we will certainly forget it. Garrow noted the 3
bullets that are under recommendations on page 3 are not incorporated into the
Resolution; staff did not feel that P&Z said to eliminate the water feature or
consolidate paved areas; staff felt that it cut the site in half a little bit and
eliminated some areas that might be usable open space if there wasn't a water
feature running through them. Vann said that it would come back up at City
Council.
Erspamer said there was a base traffic study done August 29~' and his thinking was
that they want it to be the busiest time of the year, so you are saying 860 or 890
trips per day. Vann said the reality is this is going to have a 3 year vested rights
period; Michael is asking fora 7 year, whether Council will give him that or not.
Vann said he doubted that it could be built next year because of financial issues.
Vann said that you could do it as a conditional date and if you want to give input
on what that month is, that's fine with them. Erspamer replied the first 2 weeks of
March or the first 2 weeks of August any day in there, those were the busy times.
Garrow replied this could be put into the Resolution as a recommendation added to
Section 10. Erspamer said that he had confidence in Lynn and John to stay on it.
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
Weiss said that in 1996 they said the same thing and removed 2/3 of the parking lot
and moved it over to Ute Avenue and it was in the resolution that there would be
follow up review and there was not, which is why this is such a big concern. Fox
responded that there has been follow up review and have been in front of City
Council and complied with what exactly the resolution and transportation has
stayed on top of it. Weiss paraphrased that the resolution was passed in 1996 and
called for a study within 1 or 2 years; your studies began well after 2000; the
review was supposed to take place in the 1990's and reevaluate traffic. Erspamer
said that he will solve this right now, this has been before P&Z before in other
applications where the City was supposed to do something and haven't and P&Z
wants to see something set in stone to make sure it happens.
Erspamer asked if P&Z wanted to talk about units 5 & 6; staff recommends they be
moved or eliminated; we were talking about the location of them. Weiss said there
was a lot of negative comment about just that from the Council minutes; Council
was more concerned with it frankly than P&Z was. Weiss said he had much more
issue with traffic and the traffic plan than he did with building 5 & 6; that was the
reason he requested the minutes to hear other opinion about building 5 & 6. Myrin
said that he still agreed with staff.
Erspamer asked if there were comments on the programming at the Club; they
wanted to have more detail. Gibbs said that did not affect any of the decisions that
P&Z has to make. Myrin said that he was concerned about the permanency of the
Club; the HOA funding it. Erspamer asked about the minutes on page 11 about
Stan's question. Vann responded that Stan's concern was the specificity of the
TDM Plan and asked that we make that more detailed and the solution put forward
was that they would hone the TDM Plan based on whatever was approved and then
take the TDM and still hone it down to a specific set of representations for
inclusion in the Council memo and subsequent PUD Agreement so there is no
reading the plan trying to figure out what we meant and it would basically tell the
points that were required check-ups, the timeframes, when the traffic counts are
done and all of that stuff, the ability to have conditions in that section of the
council ordinance. Gibbs said the current version of the TDM probably has
enough detail in it.
Erspamer opened the public comments section of the hearing.
Public Comments:
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
1. Letter from Judy Wrigley who did not like the idea of paid parking and
recommends that it not be included as a part of the approval and is
supportive of the project overall.
2. Sam Ferguson, public, said that he can't thank Aspen Club and Spa for their
generosity that has allowed him to find another aspect of the work hard play
hard quotient here in Aspen and through Michael's staffs encouragement
allowing him to work out there and further condition his body he has been
able to pioneer the sport ofmono-skiing to the X Games. Ferguson said
further the whole concept of the green zoning with the addition of these
employee housing units and further renovate the Club and he supports what
they were doing with Para-Olympics, Challenge Aspen competition
program.
3. Eden Vardy, public, said that he grew up in the valley and said that the
Aspen Club provides space to many non-profits for hosting events and
teaching; he said the Aspen Club has always included the community.
Vardy echoed Sam's support for the non-profits and supported the project.
4. Tony DiLucia, public, said that the Aspen Club was an integral part of this
community and Michael and his staff have done an incredible job to come
up with this new plan that enhances our community.
5. Michael Conniff, public, wanted to reinforce something Sam said that he
was under the Aspen Club with a machine called the "alter G" and he saw
Amanda Boxtel on that machine and she has been paralyzed from the waist
down and this machine allows her to take the gravity off her legs and allows
her to walk on the treadmill. Conniff said that he thinks a lot about the
greater good and who contributes; Michael had Tuesdays with Michael with
a different non-profit every week and he said that the Club shows this kind
of dedication to everybody and hopes and trusts that this can keep
contributing to this model.
6. Arabella Beavers said the Aspen Club reaches a broad section of our
community, from children to families to people who are athletics trying to
improve their skills, the All Valley Women's Clinic is there, medicine
industry and as a community we need something like the Aspen Club.
Michael has done an incredible job keeping the members of the community.
7. Mickie Sevenalder, long time employee of the Club, said that she started out
as an Administrative Assistant and now was the Director of Membership and
Fitness. Sevenalder said that they recently did a program "Younger Next
Year" which brought 8-10 people from out of town that was an incredible
health program that benefited other businesses because they went out to
dinner every night in a lot of the different restaurants; they shopped in town
and we can do more of that will benefit more of the businesses. Sevenalder
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
said there were a lot of different membership opportunities and said that
traffic is a city wide thing and she was abrand-new mom but has to be
available for her. Sevenalder said they were trying to get as many people
out of their cars as possible.
8. Dahlia Vardy, Club Member, said that at the last meeting there was so much
talk about traffic she started going to the Club at 8 o'clock in the morning, at
11 o'clock in the morning and then in the afternoon and then in the evening
and she did not see so much traffic; so she doesn't know why we are
discussing so much about traffic when it is not even there. Vardy said that
she was walking there so from the beginning of Ute to the Club she saw
maybe a car and a bike and she looked through the houses and she didn't see
any lights.
9. Jeanette Darnauer spoke on behalf of a few homeowners that were neighbor
to the Aspen Club. Darnauer said the first issue was the compatibility with
the neighborhood; the conditional use review requires compatibility with the
neighborhood and they don't believe that a hotel is compatible with the
neighborhood. Darnauer said the trucks to service the timeshare do not exist
today and the cars that use the hotel and timeshares don't exist today.
Darnauer asked what assurance does the city have that the Club will
continue to provide the new proposed benefits into the future. Darnauer said
that Michael Fox stated at conceptual that he does not have ownership
control over the Club so despite the fact that he is upstanding good citizen
and he is motivated to provide something good for the community he
doesn't have control over the fact that economics often trump good deeds.
Darnauer said that traffic was still a major concern for traffic issues on Ute
and concerns for the traffic demand management tools and the P&Z and
Council concerns. Darnauer said the disincentives are limited and there
were no penalties on Club members or guests, homeowners or renters.
Darnauer said there was no minimum level of shuttle service planned and
needs to be delineated. Darnauer said the concern was that the TDM lacks
the enforcement teeth and there are no restrictions if the applicant does not
meet traffic objectives.
l O.Lisa Consiligo, director of the Aspen Writers Foundation, said that the
Aspen Club has been a sponsor for years and the Writers Foundation
highlights the Aspen Club as one of the perks for the speakers. Consiligo
wanted P&Z to vote on the Club.
11.Andrew Kole, member of the Aspen Club, said that he goes 6 days a week
and drives. Kole said he goes in the morning and it's busy and in the
afternoon and it's busy and there is no real traffic; during the winter that
road (Ute Avenue) is not maintained well and pretty narrow. Kole said that
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
if there is a big snow he takes the shuttle but thinks the traffic problem is
false.
Erspamer closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Jessica Garrow noted the changes in the WHEREAS the meeting was continued to
today; change in Section 3 the Engineering for the construction management plan
is submitted as part of the building permit application and not the final application;
added in LJ's proposal for updated traffic counts to take place in the first 2 weeks
in March and the first 2 weeks of August.
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution 15, 2009 with the changes
as stated; seconded by Brian Speck. (see page 19)
Discussion: Stan Gibbs asked about the TDM in section 6, page 23 of the
memo; why the reviews were terminated. Garrow replied that her understanding
from the Transportation Department that is was a typical review period for a
project like this, as an example the Highlands Development they had a very
detailed transportation plan; they were required to do recording for a set time and
then it stopped. Garrow said it was typical for 5 years for this size of a project
P&Z or City Council could amend that if they wished. Erspamer asked who would
do the review if P&Z wanted it terminated after 4 years. Garrow said you could
write it as administrative or check in with P&Z or City Council or both regarding
termination. Cliff Weiss said there was a traffic study and was that included with
the TDM as part of this resolution or is it strictly the TDM. Garrow replied strictly
the TDM. Weiss said he wanted to know why we were talking about minimum
levels and holding either below or at and you don't establish bench marks in the
TDM then what do you hold it to. Garrow responded there were base lines in the
TDM; it's 868 trips per day; am trips are limited to 70 per hour and pm trips are
limited 99 per hour. Weiss said he would like to know why there are no specifics
as to minimum level of shuttle service; something that you feel the skeleton
requirement might be. Fox replied in Section 7 page 42 "shuttle service will be
provided lam to 9 pm everyday during the peak summer and winter seasons and
service will run every half hour". Vann said that is subject to refinement in
submission to transportation tweaks or changes that need to be made. Vann said
that they were trying to come up with a framework of the various issues for some
idea of what they are going to be.
Erspamer asked if anybody wanted to include anything about units 5 & 6: do you
want to support the language suggested by staff; move or eliminate 5 & 6.
Erspamer said that he would support staff. Weiss said that if he felt they were
11
City Planning & Zoning Meetine -Minutes -October 20 2009
coming to more of a compromise as to the traffic management plan; he doesn't
have as much of a problem with 5 & 6 and if they need a certain amount of
development in order to make an investment that satisfy his or P&Z concerns about
traffic management then he would be willing to concede on the building 5 & 6.
Weiss said if you have a nearly 190,000 square foot FAR development being put at
the end of Ute Avenue; it's really not that it was designed for that area. Weiss said
his biggest concern at this point has a great deal to do with traffic; to address
comment from public, it's no necessarily what traffic we have today and what we
are being told today, it's the fact that you have a 45% increase in parking and as
soon as you have more parking you've got more cars. Weiss said he didn't see any
realistic way to convince him otherwise. Erspamer said that he wouldn't even try
and they will not make an issue on 5 & 6.
Erspamer said that the next was to revise the landscaping plan to consolidate paved
areas and eliminate the water feature. The commissioners stated that they didn't
care. Erspamer said that nobody cares so they won't include that.
Erspamer asked if there was any more discussion before he got down to the nitty-
gritty and see what's going to happen on the vote. Myrin asked if they would go
through each section in the resolution. Erspamer replied that each section has
relevancy as to growth management, they have over qualified for employee
housing, they are on track on a lot of them so you could say I would support
certain ones but these ones on traffic I won't support. Erspamer stated that they
were going to vote on the resolution as whole and maybe we should get a straw
poll first.
Myrin said that he would speak to what was raised at the beginning tonight was the
SPA process that requires there is a benefit; to raise that; many people spoke to the
fear of the Aspen Club going away, if this wasn't here and how wonderful the
Aspen Club is and so his concern is that this remain a part of the community in
perpetuity not just for the period of time that it is in the approval process. Myrin
said and that's what our vote allows us somewhat to address and how do you
juggle something like that. Myrin said an example given the Silver Lining Ranch
that the use is changing and now they have a building that has no use so I don't
have an answer, the city attorney didn't have an answer, staff didn't have an
answer and his only suggestion was to hand this ball onto Council and so we can
move this out our room. Myrin said in Section 2 and there may be other ideas
tonight; he would add something to the resolution that says this actually comes
from Steve Skadron's July 14, 2008 minutes page 18 "there is the issue that there
is no guarantee that benefits brought to the community are permanent". Myrin
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
wanted to see something in Section 2 at the end so long as there is a guarantee that
the benefits brought to the public are permanent; and if he is alone that's okay.
Erspamer said benefits to the public in perpetuity. Fox said perpetuity is a long
time. Myrin said that was part of what they were approving when Aspen the
community gives something and he doesn't know how to get there. Myrin said
that he agreed with Andrew Kole and the traffic at the moment was not a big issue
for him.
Weiss said that he wasn't sure permanence is an issue for Planning & Zoning
because they deal with mass and scale, setbacks, heights, public use and public
amenity can benefit and is something we deal with as part of the code. Weiss said
permanence is sort of, it has come up as you said at Council, but I kind of agree
with you let them deal with that and for us to deal what we truly, I think, are
supposed to be and that traffic, building size and is it appropriate scale for that
corner of town; it's not a lodging zone. Myrin stated that he understands Cliff's
concerns and the permanence issue is that it is not a snapshot in time about benefit;
the benefit, he thinks may be extrapolated from the code it says the benefit is
public for 12 months but the code doesn't say that so he thinks as long as the code
has a benefit it should last as long as it lasts. Myrin said one thing to say is that it
turns back to a meadow, all those condos turn back to the meadow once this use is
no longer; that is perhaps extreme. Myrin said that he would like Council to
consider it; Council has already. Myrin said that he would approve this tonight
with something that passes that ball and awareness onto Council. Erspamer said
that he would support Bert's concerns as well.
Stan Gibbs agreed with Bert and he thinks that we have expressed this before in
previous meetings; the SPA process is very clear to the public benefit and has to be
generated; the only justification for this is that there is some benefit. Gibbs said as
we have heard from many many people this is great benefit so we don't want it to
go away either, but we want to make sure that allowing this to be added to this
area, which is of great concern to many neighbors returns the local benefit and I
think in the short term we can all see that it does because if they are allowed to do
this they will generate a lot of capital that they can use to make the Club better,
more attractive, more people will go there and hopefully that will sustain. Gibbs
said the issue was really what happens down the road if suddenly the Club just
fails; Michael is just not able to charm enough people to give the money to operate
it and the HOA fees and how they are constructed and who will have decision
making how those get adjusted over the years but it's just not enough. Gibbs said
the expenses in Aspen go through the roof so suddenly the Club simply fails so the
issue then is if it's just an empty building except for the air space of those lots and
13
Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
the other timeshares then what's to prevent those timeshares people from just
doing what they were doing and they don't care that the Club's gone away, it's a
big empty building there's no public benefit there. Gibbs said but meanwhile the
community has allowed this use so that's what I think what Bert has concern and I
think that the Council was concerned about it as well, if you read the minutes, they
were over and over, many of them said that and I think I would like to echo Bert
and put in this section just a recommendation that the applicant pursue creativity
somehow; possible ways of doing this and that Council treat it as a serious issue
when it comes to that; they already have, I don't think that we were saying new to
them, but I want them to know that we are, at least Bert and I so far, feel this is an
issue that they should really think about, I'm not say that we are going to turn
anything down, we're not voting on decision making capacity on this particular
issue, we are really recommending to Council this is what we think you should
think about. Gibbs said that that this is what you should think about and I think
this is one issue that really needs to continue to think about and the applicant needs
to think about too.
Gibbs stated with affordable housing the City takes 1% ownership so now there is
a little tiny piece of the ownership that says no we're not going to do that and even
the Council was concerned about the out of town ownership, what if they all decide
that they want to do something different with this so they just decide come in and
really go into the process and they want to do it anyway, they want to turn it into
all timeshares; the City can simply say no we are not going to do that, we are not
going to start down that road but anyway that's just, the creative ideas that people
will really apply themselves and the Council really thinks about it. Erspamer said
that he thought the same thing and rejected it. Myrin said I guess I agree with it
and it's a good idea but I think the idea should from the applicant and Council and
staff working together.
Brian Speck commented how do you measure public benefit and the whole
paragraph doesn't sit well with him. Speck said that he understands what you are
trying to do here, some suggestion. Speck said we were talking about property
rights; let's say later this has a different use that's better for the community, who
knows what's going to happen in a hundred years. Speck said are we boxing
ourselves in by this language.
Erspamer said here is the language that I wrote "as long as there is a guarantee of a
public benefit in perpetuity". Erspamer said that they talk about process and he
and Cliff talked about that today and maybe we should make the recommendations
here and let the Council decide what they should do. Erspamer asked if they were
14
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
on the right page with that; how do we suggest they do it in perpetuity, he said that
he did not know, is that what you are saying. Myrin said we are not providing the
tool we are providing what the code says staff comment on page 9 says this
variance has to be for the benefit of the public and as Brian said down the road it
might be something else and here's another public benefit, we are going to try this
one and it succeeded. Myrin said that process is it a public benefit and that's
where it is important that it is clear and thanks to everyone who spoke here tonight
it's a wonderful community asset.
Sunny Vann said unfortunately the code doesn't say anything about in perpetuity,
it doesn't give us any specificity, it leaves it up to the discretion to Council to
balance the public benefit so he agrees with Bert if you want to include in there
that your recommendation on this is based on the assurance from the applicant's in
some shape, form or fashion that the public benefits will continue to the public and
the community and leave it up to Council to decide how to do it is fine; what
concerns him is the perpetuity word because there is no code requirement for
perpetuity. Myrin said that he agreed with that and rather than have it in perpetuity
maybe somehow that it is received by the applicant under this approval process so
you could level everything and turn it back into a field so we don't need a public
benefit if we are not providing any building. Erspamer said this approval is
contingent as long as there is public benefit to this property is that language
perfect. Weiss said the same thing was perfect.
Fox agreed with Bert and Stan and we wouldn't be here if we weren't trying to
make sure the Club's around for a long long time. Fox said the sentence that said
"the applicant shall pursue creative ways to ensure the public benefit is
maintained" is pretty strong. Gibbs said from his perspective he was just asking
the applicant to really think hard about that and wants Council to know that we
were concerned about it and they can take a further look at it; we know that they
are going to it was in their previous minutes, I don't think that Skadron's going to
say no it was a joke. Vann said that staff will ask for your minutes and staff will
say this is why this is in there because P&Z was concerned about the same thing
that you are concerned about.
Weiss said that the applicant has 35% of the Club, there's a hidden 65%, the point
is that's why I am concerned about language about 1% or even voting shares or
anything else of that nature; I don't think that Michael can even guarantee what the
other 65% would say and this is pretty much what Council would say. Erspamer
said our concern is perpetuity or public benefit; you have the homeowners
association contributing to the operations of the Club. Erspamer said I am a
15
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
homeowner and we all own it now and you are going to be the manager for 10
years but the homeowners have taken over the homeowners association and the
first thing that I am not going to fund that Club, that Club can be funded by its
owners. Fox said that is going to be part of the purchase documents. Vann said
you are going to buy this subject to a purchase document and in fact one of the
ways we are going to try address this with Council that they are required to record
all of the actual timeshare documents with the final PUD approvals and so forth,
which are not required until you are ready to close. Vann said that they will try
and pull all the relevant provisions from the attorney out of those documents that
specifically tie the two parts together in a symbiotic relationship to give Council an
assurance. Erspamer said that's enough right there.
Myrin said that he was comfortable with section 2; there is some discussion on
other issues, parking and transportation. Garrow asked if this clause was being
kept. Erspamer asked about the words "continually" in here. Fox and Myrin said
the second sentence was enough. Gibbs said what Michael just said is exactly the
kind of thing that I had already found out as well and just threw out the thing about
ownership but the HOA relationship is also one of those really important things
and if I were on Council that would be what I want is to see the details, I want to
know how that's going to work, I want to make sure that that's going to continue
because if as you say the HOA just suddenly go well the majority of HOA doesn't
care anymore about the Club because they didn't buy into the whole mind, body,
spirit thing then it would, that would be something that has to be structured so that
maintains the benefit, which is the Club to the community. Jim True said that the
person who made the motion (LJ) and the person who seconded (Brian) is okay
with this amendment; if not then there could be a motion to adopt that. Erspamer
and Speck were okay with that section.
Weiss said do you want to move right to traffic that should cut to the chase. Weiss
said he would make this quick summary; I do feel that the traffic and parking plan
is very much a part of our purview, we do it all the time and that's something I am
not passing onto to Council. Weiss said when we considered the idea 2 weeks ago
making recommendations each recommendation has been for one reason or
another refuted; my answer to that is I don't think it's our job to be traffic
engineers or the architects or the planners; we are just here to measure the
application. Weiss said they don't like some of our suggestions I would have gone
with that I don't know that I was ever married to my suggestion or Michael's
suggestion or Stan's suggestion; we were looking for ways to feel that traffic had
been addressed. Weiss said that it was very much of an issue here and he's not
willing to stick his head in the sand and say you better go with a 200,000 square
16
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
foot facility out there and you are trying to deal with traffic and take a look at that
place in the winter it's not same thing as it is in the summer. Weiss said it was not
the same thing one hour and you yourself would say give me different date and
different times and I don't necessarily want to go there but I don't also want to be
the designer of the solution; I have tried that a little bit and tried to find middle
ground with the applicant. Weiss said I think 750 cars a day, 1500 vehicles per
day, 62 cars an hour; that's the present level; you are adding 45% more parking;
you are going to have a 45% bigger problem. Weiss said they don't want to more
shuttles for their general membership and I'm not including the folks that need
physical therapy; I had 9 surgeries I know what physical therapy is all about and
I've been a member of the Club, not that I have anything against the Club, I just
don't feel that traffic, this traffic management plan is adequately addressed the
future and I am very concerned with anything that is based on review. Weiss said
this won't get my vote because to me it's all wait; and the end of that street it's
hard to get rid of that traffic.
Myrin asked Cliff if there was something in section 10 that they could add. Weiss
said not by him. Myrin asked Sunny if there was something in section 10 that you
could add and feel more comfortable with. Weiss said you don't understand, what
I'm saying is I want the applicant to come to us with a traffic plan that I can sign
off on; that we are going to feel good to allow that whole portion of town,
something that effects about one-third of the permanent population of Aspen, you
know that we know that for years to come and you are worried about perpetuity
that it be a Club; I'm also worried about what happens when it's not a Club or
stays a Club. Weiss said you have 1900 people, 70% of which Michael states are
permanent residents of Aspen; I know it's tough to get them out of their cars but
you build more parking it will be even tougher so I don't think that they have made
the tough decisions they need to make and I don't feel that we have come to an
adequate compromise on this and I'm not willing to pass it onto Council; there are
other big issues; they have issues with the 65% 35% ownership issue and public
benefit issue to Council. Weiss said that we can weigh in on that, but traffic is
something we deal with on every application, this isn't the first.
Erspamer asked Bert is he was comfortable with the discussion; I know what you
are trying to find an avenue that would work.
Fox said that he had a lot of respect for Cliff and he did not know how Cliff could
look at the traffic plan; the City Transportation Department says it's the best traffic
plan they've ever seen and I'm shocked unless no traffic plan is okay; in which
case I respect it. Fox said that they've spent 6 months with the experts coming up
17
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
with this plan, that's not our plan, it's not their plan, it's a joint process of what's
going to work and how do you make sure something's going to be effective for
future; there is no silver bullet to this thing and to come up and say that this traffic
plan is the City saying this traffic plan was the best they have ever seen. Fox said
that he has never heard the City ever say it was the best that they have ever seen.
Weiss said they were not here as a commission to rubber stamp what staff
recommends; we often don't and I appreciate that staff worked long and hard for
you all but I'm not convinced that what you came up with was the only solution to
what I think will be a problem in the future. Weiss said we've been here 13 years
ago; the City has been here before and the result of that is a mess and then staff
moved on. Weiss appreciated that staff worked hard and that is why they have
taken some ownership here and he was there for this commission and it's not
necessarily our jobs to recommend to rubber stamp everything comes down out of
staff.
Vann said that we have talked at length about this and so far, if I understand this
clearly, correct me if I am wrong; the primary concern is the potential to having to
revisit this with conditional more stringent methods, which is not something that
we would prefer to do. Vann said your preference would be to implement things,
which in your mind would be and perhaps everyone else's get the job done today.
Vann said whether that position is shared by everyone else, I don't know, but the
plan which staff has recommended and it is the Transportation Department says
that you when you recognize that it might not move forward, when we have set up
an approach to address it on an incremental basis in the future. Vann said if that
part of it is acceptable to the majority of you, the issue of transportation has been
addressed because there is a condition that it be resolved. Vann said the difference
between it is Cliff would like to take a more hard line approach to solving the
problem which he thinks is a significant problem today and I don't know if the rest
of you shared that opinion or not or whether the approach that's outlined in the
plan that can be addressed.
Myrin said that the plan in place and his biggest concern, which we have
addressed. Weiss said there was no plan in front of him that he can feel good about
and there's no recommendation and we have tried to make some recommendations;
we've tried to find solutions; there were 3 were reviewed by the applicant. Weiss
said it was not his job to be their traffic engineer. Erspamer said that we know
where we are on that.
18
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20, 2009
Gibbs said this letter we have from Ms. Wrigley is your greatest challenge; she
simply says that she is not going to get out of her car and so realistically you are
going to see this is the kind of person you have with the challenge to make them
find a different way to get there. Gibbs said when you add a hundred plus pillows
and it's full in the summer; everybody's out there, it's going to be tough. Gibbs
does feel comfortable with the proposal; he doesn't have such a problem with the
process that's on going, in fact he thinks it's the only realistic way. Gibbs said he
doesn't mind the idea of it pending for 5 years; at least he would like to see some
kind of language that just says it can be recalled by Council at anytime, the study
demanded to show that you are still compliant. Gibbs said he didn't think the
compliant should end; the studies and all the reviews could end but other than that
he didn't think he had a problem with the current process and the current version of
the TDM, he believed would be intensified and detailed when it gets to Council
and he was sure that Council will take a good look at that. Gibbs said that he did
think that they had a challenge; there were a lot of buildings being put out and a lot
of people and a lot more cars and it's just going to be tough.
Speck said that he was sorry to disagree with how strong you were coming across.
Speck said there was a global problem with traffic and that we are always trying to
solve and he thought it was important to try to solve the problems but there is
definitely a charge on traffic. Speck said that he was comfortable with this. Speck
said the biggest issues were parking and traffic; he trusted Michael and his
integrity and he also trusts City Council.
MOTION.• LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution 1 S, 2009 with the changes
as stated and corrected by Jessica Garrow; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call:
Gibbs, yes; Weiss, no; Myrin, yes; Wampler, no; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes.
APPROVED 4-2.
Michael Wampler commented that Michael has done an awesome job with non-
profits; he said that he did not have a problem with the traffic but agrees with the
people on the commission that people are not going to get out of their cars.
Wampler said his problem from the beginning was this the appropriate place for
the condos out there; is it for the public benefit; the way he sees it is they are
selling land to a group and would like to see another way to raise money to
improve the club. Wampler said that he was having a problem with the
condominiums out there and for that matter he could not approve this.
Erspamer said that he voted no at the original concept because of the traffic
problem and the density and Sunny asked him. Erspamer said the density was
19
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -October 20 2009
behind them so he thinks that P&Z has to look at different rules for what they are
judging and he will vote yes on this project.
Adjourned at 6:35 pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
20