HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000404ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2000
Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p:m. held in City Council Chambers
with Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre, Ron Erickson
and Charles Vresilovic present. Tim Mooney arrived at 5:00 p.m. City staff in
attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Chris Bendon,
Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Lee Novak, Housing; Jeff
Woods, Parks; Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Steve Barwick, City Manager; Steve
Aitken, Golf; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONERq STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Roger Hunt said that he received a letter from the Mayor regarding City Council
adopting the AACP. He said that if there were changes to the plan after P&Z
reviewed it, then he would like to have P&Z re-review it.
Blaich asked when the review process would have the second reading at City
Council and inquired if Council amended anything. Joyce Ohlson replied that it
would be on April l0th and she said that Council did not amend anything except
the changes that P&Z had made.
Ohlson said that there may be a code amendment to have the DRAC applicants gc
to either HPC or P&Z for review with the streamlining process.
Ohlson said that community development would like to add an additional meeting
on April 25th for the Highlands Village Rezoning because the April 18~ meeting
was very full.
David Hoefer said that the Tippler Project went to district court and the court of
appeals both ruling in favor of the City of Aspen with the P&Z decision. He noted
that there was a meeting procedures sheet for the board.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE INITIAL ZONING
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the
Aspen Highlands Village initial rezoning to April 25th. Jasmine Tygre
second. APPROVED 7-0.
1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2000
./~.. COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 1
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE INITIAL ZONING ........................................................................................... 1
213 WEST BI. EEKER- HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION .................................................................. 8
CODE AMENDMENT - GMOS EXEMPTION .....................................................................................................9
12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 20£0
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
TRUSCOTT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD
Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing for the Truscott Affordable
Housing Conceptual PUD. Chris Bendon stated that Resolution #00-15 would be
the topic of this meeting with a recommendation to City Council.
Bendon said that there were many philosophical points to be made on the project ~o
relay to Council. He explained that the 3 maps were composites to go along with
the resolution. Bendon said that this was a good project shaped in a positive way.
Bendon stated that there were 4 components of importance to the project, q) The
intersection development had to be done prior to the construction of housing. ®
The remote aspect of the parking garages were an important part of the plan. ®
The configuration of the restaurant was accessory to the golf and Nordic
experiences, not a destination restaurant. ® The residential aspect must have high
density utilizing a good and livable design.
Bendon referenced Howard DeLuca's letter answering procedural questions on
rezoning, subdivision and PUD to be done at the same time. He said there would
not be an ESA review on the golf course.
Bendon asked the commission to look at the findings entertaining questions first,
then public comments, returning to the commissioners for comments.
Roger Haneman asked who would control the stop light at this intersection. Lee
Novak replied that it would be CDOT.
Michele Powers, public, asked about pedestrians crossing the highway to get to the
bus stop. Bendon replied that there would be an underpass and a stoplight.
Bendon stated that this was an excellent opportunity for transit orientated design
and the use of an internal remote parking would aid in promoting transit usage for
using the free buses. He said that pedestrian connections dealt with the underpass
at the entrance into Truscott. Ron Erickson asked if an option could be left open
for moving the it towards the east side to be closer to the residential aspect. Novak
stated the intersection worked for the bus stop, but there were significant concerns.
Novak said that the underpass under the Truscott entrance would also serve the
trail connections. Jeff Woods responded that this was part of the major valley-wid~
trail system. Hunt inquired about the grade. Novak replied that was for handicap
access; the grade and line of sight were required to meet ADA standards.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 20£ 0
Bendon said there was discussion about the parking garages. He said that one style
was to be like that at the Meadows without venting. Steve Barwick stated that City
Council requested that remote parking be analyzed at other locations, so this was
not necessarily the site for remote parking. Hunt stated concern for the parking
garage not being placed here or anywhere. Novak responded that the design wou_d
be such that it would not take that much to add a garage at a later date.
Howard DeLuca, public, asked about a construction schedule for building the
garage and what mitigation was taken for golfers and cross-county skiers parking.
Bendon replied that there would be a ~onstmction schedule and phasing plans
regarding the effects on the leaseholders, recreational amenities and staging areas.
Hunt appealed that the surface parking and surface to the clubhouse facility be
lowed now for an alternate parking garage. Bendon suggested language for the
resolution that read that any surface parking be developed with a future garage in
mind, so that the utilities can be placed in proper areas.
Michele Powers, public, asked for clarification of the remote parking. Sadler
responded that the City was to investigate the idea of remote parking as part of thc
Aspen Area Community Plan, keeping in mind location, utilization, and
administration. Bendon replied that there were future projects in town where
surface parking in the city was not available on site, the parking would be located
at Truscott. Mooney said that the operations of the parking lots and garages shoul~l
have language regarding "a pay as you go" style of parking to help fund the costs
of the remote parking. Blaich said that it could take a long time for the study to be
completed for the parking garage location.
Hunt asked how the recreation parking lot would be monitored and where would
the residential over-flow parking be located. Bendon responded that the composite
drawings had shown 2 areas for the residential parking. Blaich asked if the
management would be of the entire property including the recreation aspects.
Novak stated that all would be under one manager. Hunt asked about parking for
guests of the residents. Novak replied that the parking plan allowed for 1 space per
unit and until Phase 3 was completed, then there would not be any additional
parking; this was in order to achieve the density level that was desired. Erickson
asked if that point could be included in the resolution to council.
John Walla, public, asked if there was an overlay for the recreational use parking
lot, because it looked to be less parking that the current number of parking spaces.
Walla stated that parking was important. Novak stated that the same number of
parking spaces could be achieved as the current number of spaces. Walla said the
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2000
current lot had problems with people creating there own parking spaces. Walla
said that he cautioned against the parking lot being under-sized because it was an
important part of the plan. Bendon responded that the numbers of spaces were
derived from the different entities (golf, tennis, residential units and consultant
input). Erickson asked John Walla to go to City Council with his concerns about
parking. Erickson stated that the citizens had a right to go to City Council. Blaici~
asked if paid parking was considered. Novak responded that it was discussed but
they wanted to keep the local golf experience affordable and pleasant. Barwick
responded that they did not know of a golf course in the country that had paid
parking, however there were incentive possibilities for locals who arrive without a
car. Barwick noted that club storage with outside access lockers was being
researched. Barwick said that paid parking for employees was a possibility.
Bendon suggested the commission add a phrase in the recreational parking "the
applicant look into ways to reduce the recreational parking demand." Hunt said
that a parking structure could help with the separation of golf or recreation parking
and resident parking.
Bendon said that the residential parking ratio was 1 unit for 1 parking space and
encouraged additional short-term parking to reduce the schlepfactor. Bendon said
that the handicap units had assigned parking. Novak said when the Red Roof was
redeveloped, there would be a small amount of additional spaces. Charles
Vresilovic asked how the spaces would be assigned and questioned what will
happen to the current residents parking spaces during construction. Novak replied
that the allocation would have to be worked out and a construction manager will be
hired to sort out the problems. Novak said the current residents parking spaces
would be re-allocated, so they will still have parking spaces.
Tim Mooney said that he liked the U-shaped plan but less rigid. Mooney said that
one of the advantages m the U-shaped plan was that there was more parking in that
area. Bendon replied that was a good issue to add: the layout should accomplish
the level of density in a less rigid U-shaped plan. Mooney stated that the project
should provide enough parking because there was enough room to put it on the
property. Mooney said the project should be balanced with the needs that it would
generate to include a residential U-shape design. Hunt asked how this would be
presented to Council when at least one member of Council felt the courtyard was
an essential part of the plan. Ohlson responded that the commissioners needed to
present the resolution, as the members perceived it.
,,----, Jasmine Tygre asked the unit mix of the residences (one-bedroom, two-bedroom).
Chris Barr, architect, replied that Phase I was 35% studios, 39% one-bedroom, 17
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, APRIL 4, 2000
two-bedroom (26%). Phase II was 24 studios (60%), 12 one-bedroom (30%) and 4
two-bedroom (10%).
The commissioners felt positive about these poims.
Michele Powers, public, noted that one-bedroom units could have more than one
person, therefore the possibility of more than one car existed. Blaich asked if there
were statistics on the number of cars and people in the current units. Novak said
that the over-flow residential cars were parked in the golf parking lot.
Howard DeLuca, public, asked the number of spaces currently in the golf parking
lot and the size of the spaces. Laura Kirk, architect, replied that there were 84
spaces that were 9'x18'. DeLuca stated that the land use code was a 1 to 1 bed
ratio for parking requirements. DeLuca asked to downsize the project rather than
up sizing it. Blaich asked the planners if the parking spaces were an adequate size
and if the numbers would work. Blaich suggested that the parking areas be
surveyed as to the type of vehicles and ownership.
Michele Powers, public, asked how the parking would be determined for the
residents and recreation. Powers said that she also spoke for some of the other
Truscott residents who could not attend the meeting and they were not interested in
extending the courtyard but would rather have more parking. She said that parking
was crucial for the residents. Blaich responded that they wanted to obtain the
maximum occupants with the required numbers of parking spaces. Blaich said that
he welcomed the input from the residents of Truscott and suggested that the
residents attend the City Council public hearing. Tygre also noted that citizen
comments to City Council were important.
Mooney stated the philosophy should include what livability means for the
residents~ John Walla said that the maximum residential density was an important
issue but parking could not be overlooked. Walla said that the residential,
restaurant, golf, driving range and tennis court parking needed to be included in the
parking space compilation.
Hunt stated that there was a problem with the parking space allotment because it
was already at a shortfall for the residential aspect, let alone for the club space. He
said that he wanted City Council to know there was an overflow as it now existed
and would ask that Council to at least research additional parking under the tennis
courts. He asked that storage parking also beaddressed.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4.20(0
Mooney requested that sidewalk walkways be addressed, but not necessarily be the
standard city sidewalk rather more of a path. Jeff Woods responded that the
sidewalks were required to be 4 feet wide.
Bendon said that the commissioners requested a "dig once' approach for the
infrastructure. Mooney asked if everything would be underground. Novak replied
that any new utilities would be underground.
Ed Sadler noted that Cotmcil was not very different in their thinking of the number
of units. Bendon stated that P&Z was able to present more of the philosophical
comments on the whole project.
Blaich commented that construction parking needed to follow certain rules and
regulations also.
The commissioners stressed the need for adequate parking and including the need
~n every aspect of the plan. The commissioners also expressed the absolute need
for over-flow, remote and storage parking facilities.
Bendon stated that conceptual approval gave the ability to apply for final, which
did not include anything vested. Hoefer asked for the time limit. Bendon replied
that the time Iimit was one year; it was contemplated that Phase 3 would be
completed in 2006, if an extension was required it could be applied for in 2005
Bendon said there would be 6 tennis courts, ia stadium style with parking
underneath. Hunt noted that this parking would be essential to make the parking
plan work. Mooney asked that the tennis courts be designed with a buffer from the
highway for a pleasurable experience. Blaich stated that the parking underneath
the tennis courts should be a priority. Vresilovic asked the operational cost
difference between a clay court and a regular court. Woods replied that a clay
court was not more expensive to maintain over the long-term.
Bendon said that the restaurant service area should be attached to the building.
Hunt asked if the service area could be designed with the parking structure in
mind. Bendon said the restaurant would be an accessory use to the recreational
facility and not a stand-alone use. Hunt said that a stand-alone restaurant would
have an adverse effect on the parking needs. Tygre agreed with Roger. Mooney
stated that the restaurant should be required to mitigate for any employee
generated. Trash areas would be addressed. Tygre re-emphasized what was
livable was very important.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 20ii0
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.r~.
Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 6-1.
Buettow left at 7:00 p.m. Tygre left at 7:15 p.m.
Bendon said that the community center would include the laundry facility. Novak
said there would be a meeting room, offices for the manager and back-up laundry
facility. Mooney said that a community center was a minor use and secondary to
adding more housing. Mooney said that housing funds should be used to build
housing and every unit should have a stacked washer and dryer. Blaich suggested
that the meetings be held in the restaurant or Junior golf facility. Novak said that
shared laundry facility would be necessary. John Walla stated that he would be
glad to help design the laundry facility for the ratio of washers and dryers and
types of machines. Walla said that he would help without charge.
Bendon said that the Junior Golf will take over the existing Pro Shop. Jeff Woods
said that Junior Golf would lease from the city.
Bendon said the basic architectural style, size, scale and massing were discussed.
Erickson said that if we conceptually approve the scale, massing, architecture
presented tonight, it won't matter because ~t may all change because of parking.
Bendon responded that this was only for architectural direction. Erickson stated
that he wanted to see maximum density with a lot of air and light, that was a
conceptual architectural statement, not a description. Tygre said that Ron was
pointing om that these units ideally would be designed from the inside out, based
on how many livable units could be placed on the site. Tygre said that if the
commission would conceptually approve an architectural style, it would preclude
any other designs from being sought. Bendon explained that this conceptual was
for the look, more rustic or more modem.
Erickson asked why the story poles, right next to one another, were at different
heights. Novak replied that they were trying to identify 1s~, 2nd and 3rd floor roof
heights. Ted Guy, architect, stated that the mass, scale and exterior appearance
will not change drastically no matter if the units were stick built, modular or
whatever. Erickson stated for clarity that he did not want to design the project, tha:
was Ted's job. Erickson said that he wanted 100 livable units. Mooney Stated that
he wanted to design the units. Blaich noted that there could be 3 or 4 different
styles. Bendon stated that P&Z should make a finding (acceptable or not
acceptable) on architectural character at Conceptual PUD. The Commissioners
polled on the architecture stated that Hunt, Erickson, Haneman were indifferent
and Mooney, Vresilovic, Blaich said acceptable.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2000
Mooney said that with the U-shaped plan, and if parking were included at that end,
then he would vote in favor of the plan. Erickson stated that he still did not think
that there would be enough parking. Mooney asked that the parking spaces be
numbered and counted. Bendon replied that would be in the final review.
Michele Powers, public, requested that the wording in the resolution reflect the
commissioners concerns providing adequate parking for the project. The
commissioners and staffreworked the language.
Efickson stated that, in his estimation, philosophically parking was not meant to be
paid for with housing funds. He said that parking was a luxury for subsidized
housing.
Toni Kronberg, public, said that she wanted to see more open space for the
affordable housing.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting another ~ hour,
until 8:00 p.m. Ron Eriekson second. APPROVED 6-0.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #00-15
recommending City Council approve the Aspen Golf and Tennis
Club/Truscott Housing Conceptual PUD as amended finding the criteria
have been met with the conditions of approval: 1. The Final PUD application
shall include: a.) An application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezouing, Special Review for
parking, Growth Management, and Residential Design Standards. A pre-application
conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to
submitting an application; b.} Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become
requirements of the PUD. c.) A proposed subdivision plat and PUD plans, d.) A construction
plan describing timing of construction components, areas of disturbance, contractor
parking, and a physical plan for maintaining adequate access, including emergency access,
to land uses remaining active during construction shall be provided with the Final PUD
application, e.) A detailed phasing plan that describes overall timing of specific project
phases, including the intersection, and describing construction affects on the golf course
operation and leaseholders. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman,
yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Vresilovic, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes.
APPROVED 6-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
213 WEST BLEEKER- HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
-'""- Bob Blaich opened the~public hearing. Amy Guthrie provided the notice and
mailing at the March 7 meeting.
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000
Guthrie explained that 3 of the 5 review standards had been met (the architectural
importance, neighborhood character and community character). Tim Mooney
inquired as to when the house was built. Guthrie replied that it was sometime in
the late 1880's.
No public comments.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #00-17
recommending Historic Landmark Designation for 213 West Bleeker
Street finding 3 of the 5 criteria have been met. Ron Erickson second.
Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Haneman, yes; Vresilovic, yes; Erickson,
yes; Hunt, yes; Blaieh, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT - GMOS EXEMPTION
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the Growth Management Quota System
Exemption. David Hoefer stated that the Public Notice was provided. There were
no members of the public present for this hearing.
Nick Lelack stated that this was for the vested rights and expansion of conditional
use, which was taken to City Council by Alan Richman. Lelack said that Richman
proposed this amendment to the Land Use Code to waive or defer the affordable
housing mitigation as required for historic landmark properties for floor area ratio
and net leasable square footage, as long as City Council and Growth Management
Commission found that no additional employees were generated as a result of the
project. This amendment gave City Council and Growth Management the
authority to alter the affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Richman stated this was a fairly simple request for the Explore Conditional Use
and Exemption. He said that they thought that they had the right to ask P&Z to
waive the fees because there was a determination that there were no employees
added. Richman said that the attorney at that P&Z meeting stated that P&Z did nor
have the authority to waive those fees and that the attorney at the City Council
meeting made that same determination. He said the code was based upon a
formula that stated if you add square footage, you must pay fees. Richman stated
that they proposed to City Council and the attorney that the authority be placed
into the code to look at the desecration for City Council to waive the fee. Richman
said that City Council agreed 5-0 that it was a fabulous idea and wanted to have
P&Z agree, that this should have the authority for the opportunity to waive the fees.
or not.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 20(0
Ron Erickson said that he was at the City Council meeting and heard Alan say that
P&Z and GMC approved this amendment to waive these fees 100%. Erickson
stated that P&Z was not 100% for waiving the fees. Erickson noted from the P&Z
me. eting minutes, he noted that Mooney questioned any mitigation ever being doric.
Enckson said that the P&Z Resolution stated that all affordable housing mitigatioh
fees should be paid. Erickson stated that he felt that Alan misrepresented P&Z to
City Council. Richman responded that the Growth Management action had a 6-2
vote in favor of waiving the housing mitigation, Ron and Tim voted against the
motion. Erickson stated that his problem with the code amendment was not with
Alan's client, she was a very respectable person, the problem was that any changes
made to the land use code were on the books until they were changed again..
Erickson stated that was difficult to then go back and change the land use code
again. Erickson said that the future ramifications could be the problems that have
not been anticipated; he stated that the land use code should not be revised by
exception but be fair to everyone.
Blaich stated that the points made at P&Z and GMC were that the employee
generation had to be monitored and the statistics were agreed to be presented to
City Council. Richman said that he wished that the code did not have to be
amended but the city attorney was clear that they could not waive the fees.
Richman said that the code could be amended and if the results could be
monitored, then it could be repealed. Richman said this was the only remedy for
this applicant and everyone agreed that this was a reasonable way to approach this
particular case.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.
Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0.
Roger Hunt stated that if this code amendment was in the conditional vein and the
rights remained only with the present owner, then he could vote in favor of it.
Joyce Ohlson explained that this code amendment required that the decision-
makers make a finding that there were no employees generated. Hunt reiterated
that it had to stay with this particular operation; if the operation were sold, then it
would go away. Ohlson responded that it had to run with land use, but it would
have to be restated. David Hoefer noted that it could not be tied to a certain owner.
Blaich noted that it would then need to be tracked and enforced.
Blaich stated that P&Z was put in a very difficult position with this whole process
and this has the potential of opening a can of worms. Blaich said that he felt that
P&Z handled it appropriately. Erickson noted that part of the staff analysis was
that thera were 69 buildings in town that this amendment could effect. Erickson
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4.20(,0
said them was no public here and that it was a rushed issue without proper thougLt.
Erickson agreed with Bob that the amendment could come back to haunt. Erickson
said he would like to restudy the issue; he realized it did not solve the problem
with Explore but this was not a traditional code amendment because it came from
the private sector and not staff. Erickson stated that the public process should not
be given up to meet the needs of one individual.
Mooney and Erickson stated that it would then become a variance and not a code
amendment. Mooney asked for the hardship. Erickson asked if the applicant had
ever paid for mitigation for anything. Richman said that the amendment would
then allow the Growth Management and City Council to review the issues and rule
on them.
Hoefer noted that was the problem with this kind of ordinance was that it came in
after the fact, it should have been reviewed prior to the application going forward.
Richman said they did not have staffreferrals and therefore they had no direction.
Mooney said that when floor area was expanded, then mitigation was required.
Mooney said if the code was to be rewritten then it should be rewritten so that it
works and not to just be amended at will. Mooney stated that the applicant's
display of emotion should have included the willingness to pay the mitigation as
their responsibility to the community. Mooney stated that this code amendment
compounded the problems with this language. Lelack responded that later this
year there would be a major overhaul to the entire Growth Management System.
Hunt stated objection to this motion turned down by P&Z without any directive
information to Council. Ohlson responded that the Community Development
Memo could reflect the P&Z concerns with the reevaluation of the GMQS.
Mooney and Erickson agreed with Roger on the directive to Council. Hunt
restated his disapproval for stating the motion in the positive. Ohlson stated that
she would provide P&Z with the memo for council.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend approval of the Text
Amendment to the Growth Management Quota System Exemption for
Historic Landmarks Sections of the Land use Code finding it complies
with the criteria amendments and Resolution #18 series 2000. Ron
Erickson second. Roll Call vote: Haneman, no; Vresilovic, no;
Erickson, no; Mooney, no; Hunt, abstain; Blaich, no. DENIED 5-0.
Meeting~a, djour~e~at 8.'25 p,m.
f/ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
11