Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.19990831MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 Special Joint Meeting with Aspen Planning & Zoning City Council Chambers, City Hall Aspen, Colorado Approved: November 9,1999 INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: Pitkin County Commissioners Peter Martin (chair) Gayle Embrey Sheri Sanzone (for quorum, then withdrew due to conflict) Doug Unfug (arrived late) Steve Whipple (arrived late) City of Aspen Commissioners Robert Blaich Ron Erickson Roger Hunt Jasmine Tygre Roger Haneman Staff Lance Clarke Applicant or Representatives for: Buttermilk Master Plan Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment for Highlands/Buttermilk Gondola I. CALL TO ORDER Peter Martin called the meeting to order and discussed the process for the meeting. Peter stated that there is a quorum, however, Commissioner Sheri Sanzone has a conflict and will retire from the table. II. COMMENTS Commissioners: There were no commissioner comments Planning Staff Tonight's Agenda: Lance stated that although the Buttermilk Master Plan and the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment for Highlands/Buttermilk Gondola are both listed on the agenda, tonight's topic of discussion will be on the details of the base Buttermilk area and not on the gondola. He stated that he would try to make this more clear on future agendas. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31,1999 Public Comments There were no public comments. III. MINUTES A. July 27,1990 Peter noted corrections to misspelled names. There were no further corrections. The minutes were approved. IV. DISCUSSION A. Buttermilk Master Plan B. Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment for Highlands/Buttermilk Gondola Request The applicant is requesting approval of an amended master plan for the Buttermilk Ski Area and an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD. This request includes Land Use Code amendments, rezonings, scenic review, 1041 hazard review, special review uses, conceptual subdivision review, growth management quota system competition for commercial expansion, and growth management unit allocations for affordable housing. Preliminary Discussion Peter Martin opened the discussion stating that it was his understanding that the applicant would like to make their presentation first. Lance stated they would attempt to end the meeting at 7:00. He stated that the best way to proceed would be to have full presentation by the Ski Company regarding the significant work they have completed since the last meeting. Applicant Presentation Lisa McManigal stated that they would be presenting their base plans tonight and added that they have done a lot of work on it since they originally submitted their application early in the year. She stated that Richard Shaw from Design Workshop would present the base plan first and then answer questions following the presentation. Bill Kane briefly listed the highlights of the application and it's proposals: • An alignment that deals with a light -rail transit option, a bus -way or a four -lane highway option. They also believe the application to be responsive to all of CDOT's specific highway and roadway planning as well as RFTA ,and skier shuttle requirements. • Consolidation of all the Ski Company's offices, which are now on seven different locations. • A commitment to affordable housing within a three-story building configuration on land that the Ski Company owns. MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 • Identification of wetlands on the property. 0 Centralized children's center on the property. • Improved retail services by the construction of a new retail building. • Connect the Buttermilk base to the Highlands operation. Lisa introduced other members of the Ski Company's staff whom have been working very hard on this application. Richard Shaw gave his presentation with the use of site maps posted for the benefit of staff and public. Referencing those maps, Richard pointed out the many various aspects of the proposal. He began by indicating the location of the merge from four -lane to two- lane highway travel. He then pointed out the realignment of Owl Creek Road as well as the relocation of West Buttermilk Road, which will enter into the Owl Creek Road alignment and have the benefit of a signalized intersection. Richard stated that the CDOT planning has a very substantial transportation corridor proposed as a light rail system or bus way and he noted its proposed location. He stated that the record of decision contains a proposed parking lot for 750 parking spaces that would be accessible to the transit station and be able to move into the City of Aspen from that location. Richard pointed out the wetlands as identified by wetland consultants and noted CDOT's wetland bank mitigation program. He stated that on the Buttermilk site there are no identified 404 jurisdictional wetlands. Richard noted other reference buildings and boundaries as reflected on the maps. He stated that the CDOT plans have a significant change in the way in which the road is planned. He stated that Owl Creek Road has been elevated between S and 12 feet above the existing grade and noted that the map reflects those elevations. Richard stated that the concept is to create convenience, to provide a level of service that has not existed in the past, to make it as accessible as possible and to create a village that is attractive, lively and friendly. He indicated the lane turns as proposed by CDOT coming into and leaving the village. He pointed out the transit corridor and stated that it is a very simple, straightforward scheme. He pointed out the 600 foot pedestrian street from the transit center to the hub of the central plaza, stating that it is about 40 foot wide and would have buildings that are two to three stories high and should be a fun walk for people. Richard discussed the parking structure and stated that the infrastructure would provide for two lanes both entering and exiting the parking structure. He stated that if the parking structure is full, there is a ramp that will very easily take you to the lower level. He stated that there would be a pay system that would occur on exit. Addressing the Children's Center, he stated that it was approximately 13,500 Sq. Ft. There is a private teaching area and has a great access by bus. He stated that there is a very convenient short-term parking arrangement for parents to drop off their children. He discussed the skier shuttle and drop-off points on Owl Creek Road as well as locker areas, skier service areas and ski storage areas. Richard discussed the office space and stated that the administration of the Aspen Ski Company would be a small campus of buildings reflecting their proposed locations on the map provided. Richard summarized the proposal stating that he'd discussed the major points of the site plan, which covered land use, transportation, arrival, turning movements, landscape design, scale, mass and use of the buildings as well as the pedestrian spaces. He stated that it is basically a small-scale 3 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 village that provides a distribution of skier services that don't exist today. It offers the ability to implement the Entrance to Aspen proposal, which uses parking in a multiple seasonal way and provides a level of guest convenience, which also hasn't existed at Buttermilk Mountain in the past. Commissioner Comments Roger Hunt stated that his major concern with any project is serviceability. His concern with this particular application is that the two bay dock is not sufficient to service the facility. He stated that when they finally get into the details he would like to see how this is going to work. He also suggested that the applicant is underestimating their tour bus needs and that they should consider expanding this by at least two or three. He suggested that at the very least the applicant should maintain the ability to expand it. In response to Roger's concerns, Richard stated that they have identified the ambulance to be a part of the slope side area and they have space within the Children's Center. At this point, Richard referenced the posted maps, identifying the service bay area and that it is 12 feet higher than the lower level. He went though the details of loading and unloading in the service bay area. Richard identified the dedicated ambulance area and it's accessibility. Bill Kane pointed out that this is not an exclusive area for shipping and receiving. Roger noted another concern that there doesn't seem to be sufficient area for semi truck's to maneuver. He asked what provisions have been established for storage of other service vehicles while at this facility. Richard responded that they would address this further as they moved along. In regards to charter buses, Richard indicated storage bays for these and noted that they are planning for a total of five buses. Chris Kiley, a representative of the Aspen Skiing Company, stated that on a typical weekend at Buttermilk they would see two to three charter buses. On a busier weekend they will see more than that. He stated that they would continue to operate the Tiehack parking area throughout this plan so that during the peak periods they would have an overflow area. Ron Erickson stated that in looking through the numbers he'd only seen 300 Sq. Ft. of restrooms and that this wouldn't be sufficient. Richard agreed stating that there will be restrooms at Bumps, and that the individual buildings themselves have not been broken down into detail yet. Ron asked, not including skiers, how many people would be in the small village on an average winter day. Bill responded that they haven't broken this out yet. Bob Blaich asked what the cost of parking would be for skiers. Bill responded that this would have to be addressed with the County or with CDOT depending on who would ultimately own the land. He stated that their proposal is that the 750 spaces would be operated in support of skier parking. It would be free parking for skiers of any of the four mountains, if you do not ski, then it's a paid parking arrangement. In regards to the potential re -development of the Inn at Aspen, Bob stated he'd like to hear more about this. Steve stated that there is a vision to do something in the future but 4 MINUTES ofthePitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 that it could be a long way down the road. Bill added that this is not part of the Ski Company's proposal, however, they wanted to show that they were relating to this parcel. Bob noted that there is a very popular farmer's stand that exists on that site and asked if it would be eliminated. Bill responded that they planned to incorporate it. Roger asked how many employees were being re -imported to the upper -valley. Bill responded that there are at least seven locations now and all the employees would be organized at the new offices. Doug asked Steve, from the Inn at Aspen, what the Inn's development potential is. Steve responded that they really haven't analyzed that at this point. Glen Horn addressed Doug's question stating that the Inn at Aspen is a non- conforming use of the AF-2 zone. Given the existing zoning, any future development would require a zone change. Gayle Embrey asked what provisions were being made for disabled people. Richard responded stating that everything on the site plan would be. ADA accessible and that they have the added benefit of the grades that will be established on the parking that they will have as flat a site as you can find in Pitkin County across parking. Ron asked how large the daycare and children's center at Aspen Highlands would be. Bill responded that there isn't a major proposal for daycare and programs at Highlands. He stated that there is a convenience nursery in building 2, but that was about it. Ron noted that he was looking at the Aspen Highland Village Vision Statement document. Georgia Hansen, of the Hines Company, stated that the document that Ron is looking at is merely opportunities and not a land use approval or planning document. She stated that the size and how extensive it is depends on what happens with Buttermilk. Peter asked if the entrance to the parking lot was three lanes wide. Richard stated that it was and that the center lane is a reversible lane. In regards to landscaping, Steve stated that it should be substantial enough to screen the service areas and that there should be real trees there and he indicated that some thought needed to be given to the size and species of those trees. Richard responded that the plan would accommodate the screening of that service stock from the roadway location. He added that the visual improvement from what exists today is clearly an objective that they have in mind. He stated that there are already a large number of - Spruce trees, which attempt to screen that area. Lance added that what is now being shown will require a PUD variance. Officially, the County has a 200-Ft. setback from the right of way of Hwy 82, which a good portion of this development is within. The Ski Company is aware of this and feels that this is a beneficial plan that should be approved even in light of that. Peter noted that their packets included numerous letters from the adjacent public expressing concern about traffic congestion. He stated that these letters have been given to the applicant and will be a part of the consideration. Public Comments Phil Rothman asked how the grade elevation of the upper and lower -level parking garage related to everything that is surrounding it. Richard responded, referencing a map MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 and noted the different levels of elevation in relation to the pedestrian level and the new Hwy 82. Doug asked what the grade change from the lower left corner of the parking garage from Hwy 82 is. Richard responded that the upper deck is lmost identical to the existing grade. The lower deck would be about 12 ft lower than that elevation. Phil asked if the Powder Panda's were staying where they are. Bill stated that they would be located in the Children's center and noted that location on the map. Julian Gregory stated that he didn't see anyway to safely pick the kid's up when they get off the bus. He stated that currently when they pick the kid's up it's on Owl Creek Road. He suggested that it would be nice to have a turnout at the bottom of West Buttermilk Road on Owl Creek Road. Stan Clauson, representing the West Buttermilk Homeowner's Association, noted that the Homeowner's Association has asked him to prepare an alternative drawing, which they will be submitting. Stan referenced a bus pullout on a map and stated that it was rather inconvenient for people traveling down valley. He stated that the Association's concern is that this particular intersection with it's various operations and activities may fail and may be overly congested. Although the bus pullout doesn't put any impact on it, because it is so remote from the existing facilities there may well be a request to change things. He stated that the second point revolves around the central receiving area, for ambulance and he thinks also for trash pickup. He stated that the Homeowners had a concern that this area may become congested and unsightly because of the activities that will be concentrated there. He wondered if there could be more of a screening barrier there. He also stated that the amount of activity that would occur there should be included in the traffic study. In regards to the double exit, he asked if it would create an unusual traffic congestion area because you have two outbound traffic lanes merging to one. Another concern is regarding the mailboxes that serve the West Buttermilk residents, he stated that the residents would like to have a provision included for a point to stop and use the mailboxes that are located there. Bill Kane stated that they'd received a memo, which is a detailed analysis that looks at the service levels for all four intersections, the Hwy 82 intersection, the parking structure, the transit arrival and Owl Creek Road. He stated that they've submitted this to Lance and isn't ready for discussion today. Bill added that they would be distributing a copy of this to Stan for Buttermilk Homeowners to look at. Bill stated that this plan is responsive to the hand they've been dealt by CDOT. David Bellack, of the Aspen Ski Company, stated that even if they saw an intersection that they thought was the finest they'd ever seen designed, they would have no ability to say they selected it, as this is CDOT's project. Bob Blaich stated that he recognized that it was not within the applicant's jurisdiction to make the decision on the intersection. Bob noted that the City P&Z has had many meetings on Burlingame and the City P&Z's main concern has been access in an area he noted on a map. He stated that they've expressed in previous meetings the desire for CDOT to consider an intersection that could serve both the MAA and existing housing 0 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1999 there. CDOT hasn't considered this and Bob thought that at the very least they should be given an explanation as to why they aren't willing to consider it. Lance stated that this really does not involve the applicant or the applicant's application, which has been submitted in conformance with current CDOT adopted plans. Lance stated that they could certainly request that CDOT give them in writing their reason for not entertaining this. Then the members could make a determination on how they wanted to approach CDOT on this matter. There was a consensus among the members that they would all like a further explanation as to why CDOT isn't willing to consider this option. Doug asked if there are two buses pullouts than run down valley. Bill responded that the two bus pullouts that are identified are for the down valley, up valley regional transit buses. He stated that CDOT, RFTA and the BOCC formulated this policy. The conclusion was that this is for the express buses to minimize the travel time. He stated that they would be more than willing to allow the opportunity for regional transit buses to pull into this intersection (he referenced a map). Doug stated that there are a lot of people that drop off children and family in their own personal vehicles and then leave. He stated that he is not sure where this would occur and he asked the applicant to clarify this. Richard responded that they hadn't wanted to mix the individual car with the bus activity. He stated that in the circular turnaround there is no private drop off taking place. Bill added that this is a RFTA requirement. Richard indicated where this would occur on the map. John Kane stated that moving the maintenance facility is a God send to the West Buttermilk Homeowners Association and he thanked Aspen Ski Company for doing so. Michael Conviser asked for clarification on several areas of the Aspen Highlands Base Village. He asked if the shuttle that will go into effect this year will go through the regular bus drop off. Bill concurred with this. In.regards to the 135 parking spaces designated as Highlands Parking, Michael asked if these would be designated in any way. Bill stated that the vision was that those parking spaces would be integrated into the 750 parking spaces and if there is a gondola connection to Highlands approved then the request is that the need for any ground transportation be eliminated. If the gondola ig not approved then there will be continued ground transportation. Bill stated that they would operate that lot for free if you skied any one of the four mountains. There was further discussion regarding the exit intersection of the parking garage. Chris Kiley stated that Owl Creek Road as shown is what CDOT has handed the Ski Company. He stated that particular concern had been given to unloading the garage at the end of the day and there is good cause to extend the left turning lane all the way down to the intersection. He stated that this is something that they would have to go back to CDOT with because this is not reflected in their design today. Lance stated that he and Bud Eylar had gone over the traffic analysis and they had spoken with the Ski Company regarding specific questions they'd had. The Ski Company would be providing more information on this. Lance added that if there was anyone that wouldn't be at the meeting on the 28`h and they had specific comments or MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, August 31,1999 questions regarding the parking analysis, the trip analysis or the trip generation analysis they should write those comments down. Roger asked if the Owl Creek intersection was supposed to be a "Smart" intersection. Richard stated that this was correct. Roger asked if light rail were to happen would they be using the bus circle and skier shuttles. Richard stated that this was correct. Roger asked what the distance was from the Snowmass transit station to the ticket booth. Bill responded that is was about 800 ft. C. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 8