Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19780530 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting May 30, 1978 , at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, Olaf Hedstrom, John Schuhmacher, Donald Ensign, Joan Klar and Welton Anderson. Also present were Karen Smith and Joe Wells of the Planning Office and City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall. Aspen Institute, Donald Ensign stepped down from the commission due to a Conceptual PUD conflict of interest. and Subdivision Public Hearing Collins opened the public hearing and asked the audience to address the questions to the applicant. Andy Hecht, repre- senting the applicant, noted that R. O. Anderson was present for any questions. Terese David She noted that the Institute brings in some very interesting people and should be given alot of consideration. She felt there are alot of people coming to Aspen that they don't want and the Institute draws the kind that Aspen needs. Collins read a letter from R. D. Langenkamp disapproving of the Institute' s Conceptual Master Plan. He felt it would have an adverse impact on the West End and City. Collins read a letter from Scott Doughty asking P&Z to pre- serve the residential character of their neighborhood. He did not feel the Institute should be permitted to rent their units unless it is for Institute related purposes. He noted a traffic problem. He noted the lack of employee housing in the Institute' s application. He did not object to the development of the Institute unless it is not in the interests of the community. Collins read a note from Linda McCausland opposing the plan as presented. Ramona Markalunas Markalunas read her letter submitted to the commission. She noted that 356 units is the largest conference development in Aspen. She noted that it has been the community' s policy in the past to attract the small conference.. She felt they are setting a precedent. She does not object to the Institute creating additional housing facilities but felt 356 units to be excessive. She felt the 28 units for employee housing to be insufficient and incompatible with the single family/duplex dwellings in the existing neighborhood. She does not object to housing employees in the neighborhood but if it must be in multiple family structures, it should be accomplished inter- nally in the Institute. She is concerned with the traffic problem in the area. She noted plans of the Forest Service for expansion and the possible traffic impact in the area. Diane Smith She noted a written campaign for opinions in the West End. She felt people in the area have enjoyed the open space of the Institute. They have also enjoyed the maintenance, facil- ities and revenue of the Institute. 14wm,r )n 67Qe-1 Eckel psrronYFRe s noted that the campaign asked for letters pro and con. Bill Martin A man named Bill agreed that both pro and con letters were accepted. Curt Barr He felt the West End residents were appreciative of the In- stitute. He felt it understandable that the residents of this area would object to changing it into a tourist oriented area. Hecht noted that the applicant agrees with the residents ' opposition. He asked that the audience direct their questions to Mr. Anderson. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 Mary Martin She felt that things tend to drag on in the city. She felt the issue was not a personal one. She supports the Institute and its functions. She felt they should support the projects that are worthwhile. She criticized the statement that the employee housing should not be put in this area. She noted that she distributed petitions one year ago in support of a new program for the Institute to expand. She asked P&Z to speed up the process . She felt that growth control is impor- tant but not the stopage of growth. She felt that this is a tourist oriented community. James Smith He has been a resident of Aspen for 29 years. During that time, he has seen everything expand in an exponential rate except the Institute. He noted 1000 ' s of interesting guests of the Institute and felt their eyes are on the P&Z now for their decision. He feels the Institute is the keystone of Aspen. Aspen has seen the Institute in good times and bad. He felt the 356 units a normal expansion compared to the ex- pansion of Aspen. Herman Edel He stated that the people against the Institute expansion are not against the Institute. He felt the main question is whether the P&Z condones the construction of the biggest commercial venture in the West End. He feels this applica- tion for expansion is out of context with the growth policy of Aspen. He does feel the Institute should be allowed to grow but the problem is how much. He feels that a conven- tion center of that size will have an adverse impact on Aspen. Hecht said that the Institute has tried to comply with the city' s requirements. He is concerned with elements of this plan being taken out of context. He feels there is a solu- tion to such problems as traffic, size, etc. He did not feel there is much difference between 356 units and a few less. Mary McCarten She noted that she spoke with Donald Ensign a few months ago about her concerns on employee housing. Ensign said that these could easily be moved. She feels the Institute has a right to expand and that this is the best plan they have seen from the Institute. She feels the proposed units are in a good place. She noted a possible transportation problem. R. O. Anderson felt the term convention center is a gross error. Their conferences are usually 30-40 people with as many as 7-8 at one time. He noted that they must have some flexibility. He noted that their present dining room is barely adequate. They hope to turn the Institute into a year round conference facility. He felt the present traffic is close to what it would be after expansion. He did not feel the impact would be nearly as severe as indicated today. The big impact would be the Music Festival with a concert every afternoon. He noted that they have been six years on this project. They desire to make this their headquarters . They do not intend to disturb the track view or river area. He noted that their proposed structure will be 800-1000 feet from any residential structure. He stated that their confer- ences last from one to two weeks with their shorter conferences during the off-season. He noted the importance of a decision because of certain financing problems. He said they would put employee housing first because of the increasing problem in Aspen. Collins said he has a problem with what is being done by the Institute for the Institute and what is being done outside the Institute in terms of commercial or tourist activity. He feels 356 units is a significant change. He feels the commu- nity supports the Institute and its programs but the main concern is that they have mostly been low--key conferences and 356 rooms with a weekly turnover is a substantial change. ,:1 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 Collins feels the community is concerned with who will manage the Institute in the future. There are also concerns with traffic, pollution, employee housing. Another concern is having a commercial venture in a residential area. R. O. Anderson noted that the Institute has been there for 25 years and has always been primarily a commercial facility, the largest before the Holiday Inn was constructed. He noted that they are full of skiers in the winter. He felt they could reduce the commercial aspects of it if they could pro- ceed with the conference center concept. They are sizing it for their summer needs. Donald Ensign felt there are some misconceptions between what is there now and what will be there when the Institute is completed. He noted that because of their lack of facili- ties, the conferees must be lodged in town. Providing these facilities will cut down on traffic, pollution, etc. With their proposed transportation system, they hope to substan- tially reduce the traffic to the Institute. A successful conference center provides all necessary facilities on site. They do not intend to add to their seasonal programs, they wish to fill out the off-season. Ramona Markalunas She asked Ensign if the facilities proposed are to service the people that attend the conferences. Ensign said yes. She asked why they needed a 600 seat conference center. Ensign said they may not need that facility. R. O. Anderson said they hoped to use Paepcke Auditorium. If not, they will need to build this facility. Mary Martin Martin suggested the possibility of the City matching their funds and using it as a performing arts center, Anderson said they would prefer to use Paepcke Auditorium but will build if necessary. Curt Barr He said the Institute has every right to develop their pro- perty but he is concerned with the magnitude, He questioned the honesty of the presentation. He noted that it was stated that the conferences could hold a maximum of 250 people. He asked why 356 units that could hold 3 people is necessary. He felt they should get down to discussing the impact of a tourist area at the end of Meadows Road involving 7-800 people. He felt they need definite guarantees from the applicant. He also felt they should look further into the future and the possibilities of the Institute moving. He felt they could let the Institute expand without effecting the surrounding area. Steen Gantzel Gantzel asked Anderson how the expansion would be financed. He questioned Ensign' s comment that the conferees would be so wrapped in conferences that they would not impact Aspen. If this is the case, why come to Aspen? He was concerned with the placement of the employee housing. He wanted to see legal guarantees of their proposals. He feared what may happen in the future. He asked how the Institute expansion is exempt from the Growth Management Plan. He also asked for some background on the other conference facilities run by the Institute. R. O. Anderson said they prefer not to build at one time. He estimated it would take 5-10 years to complete this. He noted that their facility in Berlin is totally financed outside the United States. The facility in Hawaii is totally self-financed and is worth about $10 million. He agreed that the people will not spend 100% of their time at the Institute but noted that the conferees are very busy and will spend a majority of their time there. The conferences are usually two weeks. He stated that the Meadows Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 Corporation is a commercial and taxable company. Steen Gantzel Gantzel said he feared they could sell their package in five or so years to a commercial operation. He wanted some kind of assurance on their intentions. Hecht said that the Institute has a deficiency financially. He noted that the City has asked Anderson to create an aca- demic alternative that is commercial only in that it endows the Institute. If this is sincere, then it is exempt from the GMP. Herman Edel He felt no one has the right to tell the Institute that they cannot expand. He knows that such a venture must ensure that the beds will always be booked. He feels that the community respects the integrity of Mr. Anderson but fears what may happen if he ever leaves. He feels that they should be able to sell in a few years but that their only control is in the amount they can build. He feels their application is too big. Joe Porter Porter said there are two issues. The Institute needs an endowment. For six years, this year round educational facili- ty is the most efficient thing to provide that endowment. He noted that without the Institute, the property is an economically viable place to run a hotel now, Klar asked if the Institute is allowed to expand as an aca- demic facility, is there a zone that could prohibit hotels. Nuttall said that the zoning could be changed to an academic area. She said that the permitted and conditional uses would be difficult to set but that it would be possible. Hecht said they would submit to this. R. 0. Anderson noted that this may make their loan more difficult. Collins noted that the Council has considered this possibility. Roger Hunt Hunt said Anderson' s last comment was what the community feared, that the applicant must "sell" their product to the loan agency as a commercial hotel operation. He is not con- cerned with 356 units unless it heavily impacts the West End, primarily the traffic situation,. He said that he lives in the West End and doesn' t mind the cars that inundate his block during concerts since it is infrequent. If this new expansion causes such traffic problems every night, then he objects. He felt they must pick up the liability for this and solve the problem in the future. Ensign noted that the kind of conference center that they are proposing is so recent that financial institutions don' t know how to deal with them. This is why they must characterize it as a resort hotel. He noted that this is for conceptual approval and at the final approval stage they can answer the questions of traffic, transportation, etc. Steen Gantzel Gantzel was confused as to what the Institute is to be con- sidered. They are a resort hotel for banking purposes, an academic facility for exemption from the GMP, etc. R. 0. Anderson said that they have a better chance of being financed if they can offer that it could be used as a resort hotel. Steen Gantzel Gantzel said he could look at it much more realistically if he knows that it is a resort hotel commercial property that will be used as a conference center. He felt they must face the issue now, anticipate the worst and be pleasantly sur prised. Mary Martin Martin said she did not feel they could ever become a resort hotel. They must have hotel rooms to accomodate the-confer- ees. They are an IRS tax exempt organization. R. 0.. Anderson corrected her to say that the Meadows belongs to a taxable organization. Martin did not want to see the burden of the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 0, 8 decision on the P&Z. She felt that most of the P&Z are new to the community. She also felt those that live in the West End should come up with some figures of what they consider accept- able for the Institute expansion. Klar asked R. O. Anderson how far along they are in putting together their financial package for presentation. Anderson said they could not put anything together until they get the approval. Steen Gantzel Gantzel said that the County books show they pay $36, 000 in taxes. He asked who makes the final decision on this. He felt it was the Council and that P&Z is an advisory board. Smith noted that the Council agreed to go through the Con- ceptual Master Plan rather that a full Master Plan. She noted that 356 units is atop set figure which Council arrived at by looking at various ways of controlling density. It is the charge of the Institute to establish the need for a cer- tain number of rooms based on their conference facility. The figure 356 has not necessarily been approved but it is the highest number possible. She noted that items such as traffic impact, final numbers, etc, will be resolved at the Final Mas- ter Plan stage. She noted that P&Z is an advisory board and Council will make the final decision. It then comes back to P&Z with a public hearing and they are again an advisory board. R. O. Anderson noted that the Institute has a long history of ]Qeing involved with the commercial tourist business. They the Hotel Jerome and many other buildings in town. They do not want to be inn keepers. They hope for some favorable action at this meeting. Hecht noted that they do not anticipate overruling P&Z ' s vote today. They hope to comply with the City' s wishes . Collins read a letter from Lodi Bresnitz. She is concerned with moving two units in the Meadows complex on the corner 7th and North. The area is R-6. She lives across from the property in question. She is concerned with traffic, pollu- tion, etc . She opposes this plan. Collins noted a phone call from Vivian Jones opposing the plan. He noted another phone call from Elaine Higby opposing 356 units. Murry Ga-rl -tf, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Aspen Center for Physics, is delighted to hear the City and the Institute are moving together on this, the employee housing sounds agreeable to him, he questioned the circulation in the area. Klar asked Mr. Anderson if he had estimated the number of em- ployee housing units to be built out of the 356 proposed. Anderson said they thought they would start with 44 units. Klar said they originally proposed 60-80 units. Anderson said they plan to start with 44 units. Sue MacMichael A woman named Sue asked that they give the Institute flexi- bility as far as employee housing. She felt they would not need to house all employees as not all of them will want to be housed on site. Collins noted that Ensign had quoted 150 employees to main- tain this operation. He asked Ensign how many would be housed on site. Ensign stated that they need flexibility in this case. Terese David David asked if all their employee housing units are not filled, could they be rented to other Aspen employees . Ensign said no. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 R. O. Anderson left the meeting at this point. Klar said she has some concerns with various aspects of the Master Plan. She feels comfortable with approving 356 units, if there is a high number of employee housing on site. She feared giving them too much flexibility. She felt transpor- tation is an issue that must be discussed. She felt the City will eventually be able to help in this. She felt they should discuss long range ownership and use. She likes the overall plan but has certain questions such as the additional tennis courts. She felt these matters should be discussed at a later time. Joe Wells of the Planning Office said they still have concerns about assurances that need to be made. He said they are not in favor of final approval or GMP exemption without certain conditions. They are concerned with transportation, employee housing. He noted that the Engineering Department is satis- fied with their concerns. He noted that the question of num- ber of units must be resolved. He clarified that they are not giving blanket approval to 356 units but this is not the time to address the final numbers. Schuhmacher noted that many comments had been made that blame P&Z for the 6 year delay in getting this approved. He noted that the Planning Office and P&Z had given the Institute di- rection for these procedures and had in no way delayed this procedure. He resented this attitude. P&Z has looked for answers to these complicated questions. He said this venture will be equal in size to the Alps and the Gant in a residen- tial area. He felt there are many inconsistencies in the plan. He needs to see definite guarantees from the Institute. Anderson noted that this is the conceptual stage and that many of the stated concerns can be addressed at the final approval stage. He feels badly for the Institute since they have been so many years in this process. He feels they should give a definite answer tonight. He is concerned with the number and location of the employee housing units, the number of parking spaces, the proposed transportation plan, the way that the phasing will be accomplished. He felt they should approve the plan tonight with those conditions. Klar understands that they can fill this with their summer conferences. She is concerned with the winter season, Christ- mas, etc. She does not want to see these filled with tourists . Anderson is not in favor of making this a skiers hotel but they use it now for such accomodations and should not be able to expand on that number. Klar felt they could put together a great transportation system. Wells noted that they do not agree that the parking situation is an integral part of the financing problem. Klar agreed with this and felt this was not a concern of P&Z . Smith noted the County P&Z disagreed with the 356 number, they feel that a resort conference facility is inappropriate at that site especially with respect to the GMP. They also disagreed with the manner of calculating the density and felt that the County land should be deed restricted and they should have a say in any development on County land. They did not feel there was enough information to comment on the impacts. Hecht agreed that there are many problems but asked for approval and a resolution stating the problems . Collins noted that this property was zoned SPA to give the Institute latitude so they can develop their land along with their programs. He feels that this has been subordinated to a commercial enterprise. He feels that the Institute has been given every consideration during the past six years. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1978 He feels that none of the plans were acceptable. He is con- cerned with the enforcement of the conditions. He noted the concerns of many that the ownership and use will change in the future. No one has any question as to the quality of the Institute and its people but there is a real concern with the level of activity in that section of town. He feels the main question is is this something for the Institute or is this something that will be in a commercial light to support the Institute. He asked, given the magnitude of this pro- posal, how many conditions can they put down. He felt they would be leading them on if they approve this with many con- ditions. They don' t know what kind of "units" these are. Klar asked if they should mention the 356 units in the motion. Collins said they should ask the Planning Office to draft the resolution with their conditions. Hedstrom moved to request the Planning Office to prepare a memorandum from the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council recommending denial of the Conceptual PUD and Sub- division application by the Aspen Institute because the following considerations have not been resolved to the satis- faction of the Commission: 1) A 356 unit resort conference center appears to exceed the real academic needs of the Institute and be excessively devoted to the commercial marketing of resort conference activities, 2) ,A 356 unit facility will have an adverse impact and burden on the City in respect to services, traffic, pollution, the West Side residential ambiance and especially employee housing and transportation, 3) A 356 unit resort conference center is irreconcilable with the intention of the Growth Management Plan as adapted as City and County policy, 4) The expressed intentions, admirable purposes and sincere promises of the Institute in respect to the operation of the resort conference center are an insufficient guarantee for all time against increased tourist use or a complete conversion to a tourist hotel, Finally, it is the feeling of the commission that these con- cerns should be satisfied because of the importance of the project, its magnitude and the magnitude of its possible im- pact on the community, and so as not to falsely encourage the pursuance of the application as submitted, Schuhmacher seconded. Collins asked Smith if the GMP states that the tourist accomodations should be directed to Snowmass . Smith said that the tourist capacity in the City outweighs the ski- ing capacity and that this is being shifted to Snowmass. Roll call vote: Schuhmacher, aye; Anderson, nay; Klar, nay; Hedstrom, aye; Collins, aye; motion approved. Anderson moved to adjourn, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 30 PM. sheryy Simmen, Deputy City Clerk