Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110802 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 3 Lift One Lodge PUD & Timeshare 3 Miscellaneous Code Amendments — vacation rentals 11 Miscellaneous Code Amendments — impact fees & school lands dedication 11 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Council Chambers Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present: Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Sara Adams, Drew Alexander, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jasmine Tygre asked how we handle ADUs that are not occupied when they must be occupied according to Housing; conditions need to be recorded and followed up on, but by whom. Bert Myrin asked for an ongoing tracking with monitoring. Chris Bendon noted there were 3 items on the agenda tonight: finalizing the resolution for Lift One Lodge, a Code Amendment concerning short term occupancies of residences and a Code Amendment concerning calculation of impact fees and changing the definition from bedrooms to square foot. Chris said that Council had a retreat and they had 10 goals; one is the Aspen Area Community Plan and they want to establish their review on August 30 and they understand that P &Z may or may not be done; Council's discussion will be how they want to read the plan, how they want to do their review. Two other goals that related to Com Dev one is regarding incubator business space to look for new or existing office space in town and affordable (entry) level lodging much like the topic that we have been talking about in the AACP; looking at what is our existing profile — what do we have too much of, what we don't have enough of in lodging. Andrew Kole, public, said that CCLC was approached about their opinion on the short term lodging and the laundry list in the newspaper was not entirely accurate; what they said was merit and trying to figure out some tax revenues and something simplistic like register for $100.00 and at the end of the year file your taxes and pay them. That would be it; they were not interested in the 7 layers of enforcement and CCLC thought that it was too cumbersome. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from June 2!` seconded Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from July 19, 2011, Cliff Weiss said on page 9 4.5 the last sentence after "Chalet" it should be "atmosphere" Bert Myrin added to the first sentence "does not" Stan Gibbs said on 3.9 should be Final TDMPlan; seconded by I,J, all in favor, APPROVED. 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Lift One Lodge PUD & Timeshare Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing Lift One Lodge PUD and Timeshare continued from July 19` Chris Bendon said at the last meeting we went through the Resolution and stopped part way in Section 12; he went back through the resolution accepted changes that are redlined and all the changes that still needed were as follows: Section 1 and Section 3 the introductory was added. 1.2 "j" was added for the floor area and in Section 8. Section 3.4 was verified by the City Streets Department, Jerry Nye. Section 3.5 captured the public lockers with a mix of 40 day, 50 seasonal, 40 shoe cubbies and the definition. 3.9 captured the TDM Plan; 3.11 the occupancy report shall be required and submitted to the Community Development Director and made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Chris said Section 6 g and in Section 12 had additional language regarding the LEED Design Review. Section 8 was regarding the lot area. Cliff Weiss said on 3.11 Occupancy Report he recalled the Aspen Club was supposed to come back with their traffic report a year later; so how do we know what will come to pass and what will be triggered. Cliff said how will we know if it has fallen through the cracks like the Aspen Club. Chris Bendon replied they put it into an Outlook Account to trigger and they are looking at a software system for the entire permitting and land use activities for both city and county that would assist dramatically in this; all the approvals would be documented through the system. LJ Erspamer said that on page 31 (21 of the reso) 12 g 2 to the last line for contribution to an alternative means of transporting skiers from Willoughby Park to 1A; they are going to do something else and forget the surface lift. Chris Bendon responded the concept is whatever happens in the surface lift is not possible the applicant doesn't just get their $600,000.00 back; there was a conversation between the applicant and City Council regarding those funds and they may decide to look at a different transportation system that might have the same purpose. LJ asked if there was a written document from the tramway board that says they can do this. Chris answered that has been provided. LJ would like to see it in writing. Cliff Weiss said the terminus of the landing is not on their property but on Ski Co property; he said the platter needed 13 feet on either side 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 rather than what a cable needs. Cliff was concerned that the money wouldn't be used for the Ski Co to build the upper lift and when the Si Co tries to make any changes all these things are triggered. LJ said for the sanding truck he asked for the word "dedicated" to be put in there. Chris repeated dedicated sanding truck. LJ asked about Section 17 Public Restaurant and Apres Ski Deck if there was a conversion of the public restaurant to private will require a substantial amendment to the PUD. LJ asked if we were granting permission to do that right now or that just an avenue to use if you have to do it. Chris answered if that request comes in we will treat it as a substantial amendment which means the P &Z will see it and so will Council. Stan Gibbs said that he had comments on 3.9 A Final Transportation Management Plan and he could not find the TDM Plan and couldn't say whether it was acceptable or not. Stan said this language should not have staff in it because it is not a recommendation from staff; it should say what we as commissioners can be the proper language. Stan has a question on Section 17 Public Restaurant and Apres Ski Deck that the substantial amendment that would come back to P &Z and Council; he was anticipating the arguments that would be made for such a thing; is this even possible. Stan said that it should say it was in perpetuity as a public facility. Stan asked why it would ever need to be converted. Chris replied that he didn't know that it ever would be; the language was put in there because it was a substantial representation that it was going to be open to the public and for whatever reason they don't want to do that anymore and want to be a members only thing so he put in that you have to go through a PUD review in order to that. Chris said you can use the words in perpetuity. Jim DeFrancia said couldn't you simply say that this is required to be a public facility. Jim said if they want to change it they will have to come back. Stan suggested making the language changes to public accessibility to this facility would require a substantial amendment of the PUD. Stan Gibbs opened up the public comment portion of the meeting. Public Comments 1. Bill Wiener, public, stated that he was a retired architect and has been involved in this since its inception; he requested the City Council to consider both lodges and Ski Corp as one project that created the first project to have something really great for the community, well planned and organized. Bill said that Bob is doing what he can but the resolution is being nit - picked and the basic concept has not been following the process. Bill said it could be broken up into more buildings. Bill said that he has never seen plans for the 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 project. Bill said he was opposed to the City selling easements. Bill was in the COWOP for this project. 2. Mary Janss, public, said that she was in the COWOP and she has seen this project go from huge to th the size in the most thoughtful, creative way. Mary said there was attention to detail and she said it was a work of art and couldn't imagine a better project for this area. 3. Eben Clark, representing Silver Shadow, wanted to make a comment that the code allows for variation for PUD beyond what is permitted and what is allowed in the zone district only when it has compatible uses. Eben said this project exceeded the height for this zone district and it will severely impact other properties and that is their strongest objection. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Jasmine Tygre said the applicant has been very diligent in providing information; she stated concern for the height of this building and could not get around the height issue. LJ Erspamer said the process of making a resolution and a second resolution that could be a recommendation. LJ stated he was worried about the height and if they could keep it at 42 feet somehow it would make this a really great project. Jim DeFrancia said that he did not think that they would see anything like the back side of the Jerome on this project. Cliff Weiss addressed Bill Weiner's comments and said that they have seen the drawings and it has been reduced in mass and that was addressed in both 1 and 2 " COWOP. Cliff said that the easements were for a viable ski corridor and room for a lift; his major concern was to send this hand in hand with the other resolution to Council and doesn't want them to go separately. Cliff wanted the language strong enough to send a message to Ski Co and will not let this fall between the cracks. Stan Gibbs asked Chris that they were presenting another resolution but not at this point, why. Stan said he thinks the resolutions should go together just because there is a lot of interaction. Chris replied his preference was that you conclude your deliberation on this project prior to considering this resolution because it could be perceived as a little unfair to the applicant. Both resolutions will be presented to City Council on second reading. Stan said that he could go along with that with assurance that they would go into the Council packet at the same time. 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 Stan said that height was certainly a concern but there are so many public benefits to this project and the applicant has gone way beyond what was required; they could have just filled the site up with a building and that is part of the PUD process. Stan said that this won't look anything like the north side of the Jerome. Jasmine Tygre responded the reason that she was so concerned about this was that PUDs have been used to create bigger projects, whether or not exceeding dimensions is another whole story but regard to this particular project she was looking at item b in our land use code and we have to make finding that the PUD fulfills the requirements of the code. Jasmine read the code Section B: achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site plan, a greater variety in the type and character and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible for the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. Jasmine said her finding was it does not and that is her justification of where she is coming from. LJ Erspamer asked if there was another 10 feet with the mechanical on the roof and you have a 52 foot height there; are you willing to move the mechanical to another section of the building or is that reasonable. Bob Daniel responded they have gone to the absolute highest point whether it is an elevator overrun or a mechanical room on the roof or a stairway for access on the roof so calculations have been to the absolute highest points. Bob said there would not be a cooling tower on the roof. Jim DeFrancia reminded everybody about the public benefits associated with this application: rejuvenation of a neglected part of the town and creation of much needed lodging facilities. Jim said the easements in the corridor with respect to skiing and providing skiing and lift service to that Willoughby Park area which you noted, reconstruction of Dean Street as a predominately pedestrian way, the donation of the Skiers Chalet and its renovation as a historic museum, street construction and safety improvements on South Aspen, pedestrian infrastructure on South Aspen, expanded landscaping throughout Willoughby Park, public parking spaces, 100% employee housing mitigation, stabilization and protection of some public historic assets like Lift One towers and the outhouses. Jim stated improvements to the general surroundings so popular for the Winter National Race Course and the associated activities, the application exceeds environmental standards for new development, free public ski lockers were provided, improved emergency access, improved utility systems, and improved stromwater and drainage from Aspen Mountain and keep those benefits in mind. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #013 -11 keeping those benefits in mind recommending City Council approve with the specifications. Stan Gibbs asked if there were any more comments on the resolution on Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; the commission agreed with those sections. Cliff Weiss went back to Section 12 g. about such funds may be made available for contribution to an alternative means for transportation for skiers from Willoughby Park to Lift 1A. and/or the improvements to the existing Lift lA Cliff wanted to eliminate the last part of the sentence and that money may get used for a lift with no linkage. Stan Gibbs asked about the current language on Section 17 Public Restaurant and Apres Ski Deck. Chris Bendon suggested you add to the last sentence a substantial amendment of the PUD. Stan asked if there were non - public areas in this amenity. Chris answered there was a portion of the upper deck that is public and a portion that is private. The commissioners were all okay with Section 18 Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge Building. Section 19 Development of Surface Lift Approved Bert Myrin said that he did not think that Section 19 addressed Cliff's concern about a surface lift actually happening or LJ's concern about the tramway board's approval in writing. Bert said it was put pretty clearly by Cliff that this would not be good if there is no platter lift in the end and this is a very weak attempt at assurance so he would like Section 19 turned into the strongest words to address what really is a community benefit and what the COWOP worked toward it. Chris Bendon noted that the assurance in 12g and that was the financial assurance and put it in 19 that the lift itself is not a substantial amendment to the project. Chris said that we may want to add to Section 3 in the Subdivision Agreement there was documentation of this tramway. Bert said that they discussed so many of the commissioners' comments of commitments that have been made and that have not been followed through for whatever issue it is and it is not necessarily a lift but it was a huge community benefit and if that community benefit or is not absolutely clear, he didn't see how we can hand this off to Council. Cliff Weiss didn't want to vote on the motion because he wants them to get built together and wants the second resolution to get voted on together but he will not vote on them separately. Cliff said the place to build in the reassurances that they are looking for is in that resolution and once we have seen that built we will be 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 ready to let that go and get built. Cliff said that Section 19 may not be the place for reassurance because the applicant has no control over a good proportion of what really needs to get that platter lift. Cliff said that to put the tower in place is needed to give Council a clear message that also goes to Ski Company no fooling around with Lift lA unless there is a platter lift or some transportation system, people mover. Cliff wanted to vote on that resolution on the same night. Chris has the draft resolution and he would like to keep the resolutions separate and they may be presented to City Council simultaneously. Stan asked if it would be getting a sense of the commission; how everybody feels about this issue. LJ said what if we say this approval is contingent upon approval of this surface lift by the tramway board. Cliff said he was afraid the second resolution will lose steam and some of its importance if you bind it all together. Cliff said that he would not vote for the project without that second resolution. Cliff said he worked for two years on not making it a private enclave and making sure locals could get up to that lift no matter where it gets moved. Stan asked if they could take a dinner break and look at the resolution. Chris said that he would like Jim True to weigh in on the process that we are in and to make your intentions clear about stating this to City Council. Chris said it may affect the way you treat the Lift One property. Jim True said that he would look at the resolution. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to go into executive session seconded by Stan Gibbs; all in favor. Stan Gibbs reopened the public hearing on the Lift One Lodge final PUD and Timeshare. Stan asked the commissioners if there were any more comments. Bert Myrin stated his concerns of essential public facility; the LEED Certification was not addressed from the first hearings; the June 14` hearing g, page 13 was a staff finding and part of that finding was this will be Aspen's fist gold LEED rated Lodge and staff finds this met; the platter lift was said that it would include the plaza including a drop off and he didn't think the lift was separate from the plan. Bert said that he does not have concern for the mass and scale; when you take the entire lot it seems like it fits. Bert was concerned with the height especially when you are walking up the hill on a steeper slope. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #013 -11 keeping those benefits in mind recommending City Council approve the Lift One final PUD and Timeshare final application with the specifications of the public benefits associated with this application: rejuvenation of a neglected part of the town and creation of much needed lodging facilities; the easements in the corridor with respect to skiing 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 and providing skiing and lift service to that Willoughby Park area noted, reconstruction of Dean Street as a predominately pedestrian way, the donation of the Skiers Chalet and its renovation as a historic museum, street construction and safety improvements on South Aspen, pedestrian infrastructure on South Aspen, expanded landscaping throughout Willoughby Park, public parking spaces, 100% employee housing mitigation, stabilization and protection of some public historic assets like Lift One towers and the outhouses; improvements to the general surroundings for the Winter National Race Course and the associated activities, the applications exceeding environmental standards for new development, free public ski lockers were provided, improved emergency access, improved utility systems, and improved stromwater and drainage from Aspen Mountain. Stan Gibbs second; Jim DeFrancia accepted the changes by Chris Bendon, as did Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: LJ Erspamer, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Jasmine Tygre, no; Cliff Weiss, no; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. Tie vote; 2 -2, no action. Discussion prior to vote: Jim DeFrancia included in his motion the list of positive and because it has come a long way from where it started. Bert Myrin asked if it can still move onto City Council with a failure. Chris Bendon said that if it was a tie it would have to be resolved because it would be no action. LJ Erspamer said this all hinges on this lift that we cannot do anything about; he said that he was a skeptic but at this stage he was going to have to approve and move forward. Jim DeFrancia said the lift is approved subject to the Community Development Director and stanchions by the tramway board and that is a component of this action. Bob Daniel said that not being privy to individual reasons as to one may or may not approve the recommended approval of this; we find ourselves in a precarious circumstance because the applicant has done everything possible to answer the desires of this commission. Bob said specifically relative to the lift; we have committed the funding; we have committed the corridor. Bob said that Section 19, as Commissioner DeFrancia pointed out, arose from the question that was raised in a meeting by Bert saying I want to make sure there is something else that has to happen for this to occur; planning staff put this together to make sure there were no other encumbrances associated with this corridor, associated with the surface lift itself but for the landing spot that is not controlled by the applicant or by the City. Bob said this commission has done through the artful crafting of this resolution has created that; there is no other process that this project to that point you have made sure that anyone that would ever purchase property in this cannot object to it; there is a disclosure associated with the plat documentation. Stan Gibbs stated that we will probably not get to other issues on the agenda tonight so we have the possibility of a meeting Thursday night, do we have a 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 quorum for Thursday. The commissioners said no except for 2. Bert said the AACP was more important than the code amendments. Chris said both of these code amendments were agreed to with City Council and our work program and we do have timeframes associated with those on how we are judged. Stan apologized to the public. Bob Daniel said that one of the things that this commission is adamant about is this lift corridor and to me not sitting in your seat and not just because I represent the applicant I don't understand the logic of recommending denial for project and coming back with a resolution to have a lift attached to a project that you have just recommended denial on. Bob said the strength of a recommendation relative to a surface lift in a resolution is only born with a recommendation for approval. Jasmine Tygre asked if would be a better procedurally to table a vote on the application until we have a chance to discuss the resolution at greater length, that may or may not affect the way that people vote; Bob's point is well taken why deny the application and then go through all the procedure for a lift. Jasmine said wouldn't it make more sense to table the application to give us more chance to evaluate the resolution concerning the lift and see if that addresses the concerns of those members of the commission. Stan Gibbs said that Jim True's analysis is right that it pollutes the process. Jim DeFrancia agreed about being careful about polluting the process but at the same time that there is clearly a very strong sense of non unanimous among this body with a separate resolution about the lift. Cliff Weiss said that he started losing interest in the resolution and the intent of the resolution when he realized the legal ramifications of it; he said he doesn't feel it meets the criteria for the community and that side of town. Cliff said that he wanted to send Council a very strong message and a no vote is a very strong message. Cliff said the 2 " resolution doesn't do it for him; this was our last opportunity to keep Aspen Mountain somewhat of a community mountain. Cliff said that he would rather have nothing there than what he thinks is about to happen. Bert Myrin said he keeps going back to the transportation plan because that specifically references a planned surface platter lift that will transport skiers and boarders 600 feet from Dean Street to Lift lA base and the transportation is linked to this application. Stan stated this conundrum has been in this project since it was first proposed to us and he was surprised to see the focus on it now because we have known about it the whole time. Stan said there was no way the applicant could guarantee the construction of this lift; we should long ago have brought this up; we are always going to be thinking about the good of the community and to see nothing built there I don't think that any of us would see that as an advantage. Jim DeFrancia agreed. Stan said that we had to be mindful of the alternatives that 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 02, 2011 might show up and have to be honest with ourselves that we have known that this project couldn't guarantee all that we wanted it to do; the applicant has guaranteed $600,000.00. Stan asked are we ready to call the question. Chris highlighted the resolution sections to 3.4 LJ wanted dedicated sanding truck; 3.9 is the TDM Plan, Stan said it would be the removal of staff request and making it required; section 3.18 added to the tramway board variance documentation; 4.5 the reference that the Community Development Director will find this an Essential Public Facility; 12.g strike the very last line; 12.i dedicated sanding truck again; 17 is the language of any changes to limit the public's access to converting the publicly accessible portion. Discussion after first motion: Jim DeFrancia asked if we could table and continue to a time where we have all members. Jim True replied absolutely; this application is still active, it is still on the table; this is no action. Jim True said that somebody else could make a motion to deny. Stan asked if we could reconsider the motion at this time. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to deny this Resolution 013 -11, no second motion dies. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution 013 -11 as stated by Jim DeFrancia and add a recommendation that City Council uses all means to ensure that this platter lift is developed in this area, second by Jim DeFrancia. Roll call: Jasmine Tygre, no; LJErspamer, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Bert Myrin, no; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. 2 -2 No action. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on Lift One Lodge to August 23r Jim DeFrancia seconded. APPROVED 5 -1. PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments — Vacation Rentals and Mitigation Fees Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for both Miscellaneous Code Amendments. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue both the Miscellaneous Code Amendments to August 16` ", seconded by LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11