Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000711ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held the Pitkin County Library with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt and Tim Mooney present. City staff in attendance: Lee Novak, Housing; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre recalled that there was a condition of approval for a separation, without a door connecting the ADUs to the main residences, at 123 West Hyman; she asked for clarification of this approval. She noted they were like "media rooms" with a wet bar in the corner instead of being an ADUs. Tygre stated the same was true at 999 Cemetery Lane. Roger Hunt noted an advertisement with a "guest apartment" which was probably another ADU gone from the housing pool. Joyce Ohlson said that Bob Blaich received a fax from Lorrie Winnerman, which will be addressed at the July 25t~ P&Z meeting. A copy was included in the packet, dated July 10, 2000 "Techniques to Control Home Sizes". Chris Bendon mentioned there was a Civic Center Master Plan meeting this Thursday at the Galena Plaza at noon for the other half of the site tour. He said the in-fill program will meet on July 27~ at noon. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC I-IEARING (06/20/00): TRUSCOTT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon, community development department, stated that tonight would be the public comment and presented an overview time line (Exhibit # 3). There was anew site plan introduced at the meeting. There were 6 new tennis courts, a new golf cart barn, reconfigured 18th Tee, reconfigured parking lot, new golf, tennis and Nordic clubhouse, new entrance from Highway 82 with a signalized light, 2 phases of housing (99 units -122 bedrooms). Bendon said the redevelopment of the Red Roof Inn was not part of this final application and would be brought in closer to the application date of 2006. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2000 Bendon stated that the density and parking issues were agreed goals to achieve for this project as well as a one to one parking ratio (one parking space per residential unit in the overall development). Bendon noted'that the parking issues have been debated at P&Z, Housing, Council, Staff, and the Public. Bendon recommends the one to one ratio. Bendon said that P&Z requested 100 units; this plan has 99 residential units. He said the request for a future parking structure is not precluded with this design. There is an on-going study on remote parking, which should be complete within 4 months. Bendon said the lighting plan provides an abundance of light and recommends that the lighting plan be addressed in a subsequent review with staff approval or with a Commission and Council hearing process. Bendon noted the Snyder lighting plan worked quite well and hoped for that same approach on this project. Bendon stated there was reluctance for "a pay as you go or charge for residential parking" transportation management plan, but rather the applicants are looking for incentives rather than disincentives for the residential parking issues. Bendon said that the bulk of the phasing for the construction of the housing would be done prior to the completion of the intersection construction at Highway 82. Laura Kirk, architect, stated that preliminary approval for the signalized intersection at Highway 82 was received. She noted the pedestrian and bike underpasses to and from the site connecting with the regional bike trail were to alleviate interference with traffic on the Truscott entry road. Kirk explained the configuration of the 6 new tennis courts, a new golf cart barn, reconfigured 18th Tee, reconfigured parking lot, new golf, tennis and Nordic clubhouse. The existing pro shop is still under negotiation; the golf offices will be relocated at a later date and will remain in the Red Roof for now. Kirk utilized the revised site plan (moving the clubhouse to the east) to illustrate the residential parking and recreational parking; 7 additional housing parking spaces and 20 more recreational spaces, a total of 81 spaces were added in that lot. She said there were 205 total housing parking spaces with 4 drop off places. Kirk illustrated the service areas and identified the trash, mail, bike racks, snow storage and attached delivery area for the clubhouse. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11. 2000 Kirk provided drawings of split-level parking garages, noting residential and recreational spaces. She said there was an aesthetic question of building the split- level garage in phases. Lee Novak, housing department, stated that the transportation issues include the management and parking enforcement. He said the Housing Board opposed a fee system for residential parking. The recreational parking would also be managed by the on site property manager. Novak explained the construction phasing of the tennis courts complete on November 1st with the golf portions complete by May lSt. He said that the housing phasing was beginning April 2001 and would finish 14 - 16 months later. He said that access for recreational and housing would be open at all times. Novak said that paving would not be possible in November and there would be flagging rather that a temporary signal at this time. He said that if this went to Council July 24th with second reading in the middle of August, the October and November dates could be met. Novak noted staff did not recommend a parking garage. Mooney asked why the garage plan was not recommended~ Novak replied that the funds were not available and the parking ratio was met with this plan. Kirk explained the utility corridors including fiber optics, water, sanitary sewer and CDOT. Hunt questioned the reasoning for not utilizing the future garage structure with underground utilities placement. Novak replied that the footers were a problem for the utility placement. Mooney said that there were other options of gaining parking spaces with a portion ora second level ifa design were utilized using a budget that would work. Mooney said there could be more than one plan for a destination parking lot. Jasmine Tygre reiterated one transportation issue that comes to mind is the over- crowding of buses from this project. She stressed that this was to be a transit- orientated project. Bendon responded that RFTA needs to identify the enabling legislation for mitigation purposes. There is currently no method to require transportation mitigation. Hunt asked where the alternative transportation corridor would be located. Kirk responded with an alignment for possible points at the future bridge and at the tennis courts. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11.2000 Mooney asked the height ofthe restaurant, pro shop and location of construction worker parking. He questioned what would happen to the current golf parking, construction parking and resident parking during construction phasing. Mooney stressed that safety was the main issue of the project and should preempt any construction until the intersection of Highway 82 was completed. Novak replied that the tennis courts would be the construction parking lots and the 130 spaces necessary for residential and recreational uses would be kept open. Novak said the intersection work will be April to June before the summer season. Mooney asked how a traffic signal fits into the master plan with Burlingame coming on and with the unresolved questions including the Highway 82 intersection future alignment with another roundabout and sequence of the other traffic signals. Bendon replied that there are positive and negative aspects to the transportation planning alternatives. Bendon said the conceptual approval had to address the intersections and there was a report in the packet on traffic flows. Hunt said that the signal should probably be a temporary one that would work now through Construction and then have a permanent solution. Kirk responded that there was a request to obtain a temporary signal but CDOT does but operate that way. Novak said that the money CDOT allocated for a permanent signal could come out at any time. Novak stated that the project prompted CDOT to do the design work on this portion of the highway. Ed Sadler noted that the applicants are coordinating with CDOT on the plan. Reese Williams stated that he lives across from the project and voiced concern for the need of traffic direction control at the intersection now; temporary or permanent was not the issue. He said the safety of people turning into and out of this intersection is the issue. Williams urged P & Z to consider the safety of the people. Shirley Henley stated that she also lives across the highway and safety was the problem. She said that this was one of the worst intersections in this valley and for the people that lived in the retirement community across the way this was a terrible situation. Henley asked what was more important "life and limb" or this project to be done. Carol Farino stated that she spoke to CDOT and they were in favor of the signalized light immediately and it was included in the May 1997 EIS. Farino said that CDOT stressed to her that if any thing were to be done, CDOT approval was required and necessary. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11.2000 Novak said that they agreed with the Tennis Club Subdivision people and if paving did not stop November 1st, paving would be the first thing in place after the winter season. He said they would go back to CDOT for the similar interpretations. Shirley Henley asked what the differences were between putting in street lights and stop lights. Bendon replied that was a question for CDOT. Reese Williams questioned spending the money for a temporary light but control was needed at this intersection. He reiterated the significant risk to "life and limb" and urged City Council to be aware of this as a P&Z recommendation. Ohlson stated for jurisdiction between local and state authorities that P&Z does not have the authority to approve or deny specific infrastructure or the costs in relationship to the highway corridor. Ohlson reiterated that the public testimony with CDOT agreed and that there was a deficit of highway safety for this intersection. She noted that was not the sole responsibility of this applicant. Ohlson stated the recommendations would be taken in to consideration and handled in the way staff can deal with them. She encouraged the public to go to City Council to address some of these issues. Carol Farino stated that CDOT was aware of the safety and the responsibilities. She stated that something had to be done now, pave this intersection now instead of paving something else. Bendon stated the applicant was encouraged to work with CDOT on a signalized intersection implementation as soon as possible even with a temporary light. Novak agreed and asked the commission not to hold the paving deadlines to the CDOT approvals. Blaich noted the 5 items from housing to review. Tygre stated it was the P&Z's responsibility to review the details for final PUD. Bendon responded that the lighting plan would be come back prior for final recordation. Hunt questioned the serviceability for delivery trucks for the restaurant/pro shop area. Kirk replied there were walls from the delivery area, which limited space, but it was adequate. She noted the Fire Marshall approved the plan. Hunt reiterated that it was an error to not allow for future utility easements. He said that the parking plan was barely adequate for this project. Hunt stated concern and recommended parking be accomplished at a lower grade for future expansion. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2000 Haneman stated the number of residential units and the number of parking spaces seemed adequate. Kirk replied that there would be 221 units with 285 spaces. Blaich noted the 4th option for parking was the most viable but was not considered because of costs. He said that should be a issue for the future. Mooney requested that the representations made by the applicant be attached through this approval process for the future needs. JeffWoods stated that the tennis courts would be ora very high quality. The noise from the highway regarding the tennis courts was discussed and parks planners will address these problems. Ted Guy explained the engineering for the utilities and drainage for parking areas. Blaich noted that the remote parking study was very important component and would be addressed again. Blaich asked the commissioners which of the proposed parking plans could be acceptable. Mooney stated the costs were incurred for the commercial entities and not for what he felt was more important, the macro parking plan. He stressed the need for a second level for long-range parking, which would be an amenity for the community in the long run. Novak responded that the surface level parking was the best alternative for this project location. Hunt said that in four months, when the remote parking study was completed, then some re-design of the surface parking could be accomplished. He asked how the commission accommodated that concept into the plan for approval. Bendon replied that flexibility was needed. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 5-0. Tygre asked where and when the transit-friendly orientation was lost. This is a threshold issue for her. She stated that she felt there needed to be a transportation management program and without it the whole of the affordable housing program would be set back if it is not dealt with at this time. Tygre requested that the transportation management plan be in place prior to approval. Novak stated that the strategies outlined in the memo would effectively mitigate the undo burden for the residential parking. Novak said that possibly a residential parking sticker could be issued for one vehicle per unit (resident); additional vehicles beyond that could not be parked on site. Tygre stated that the plan needs to address RFTA capacities for this project. She stated the concern for getting people in and out of this project on public transportation was a major issue. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2000 Bendon suggested that the Commission charge the transportation issues to RFTA and City Council for the adoption of rules and regulations on future projects. He stated that the City could not enforce any developer to mitigate what RFTA can provide for service in the future. He stressed that there was a need for support from the Commission for RFTA mitigation. Bendon noted that part of the conceptual approval includes autos parking right outside some of the units and one third of the parking remote. Tygre reiterated that the density which was approved because of the proximity to town and the management of the transportation was an important component of the plan and has been left out. She stated that all the options were not addressed in a sufficiently detailed way for final PUD approval. Mooney stated that there were no hard costs on the transportation figures as part of the plan. He said there would be a demand on RFTA and that should be expected. Bendon said that RFTA could offer but not be required to submit or enforce a bus time schedule unless there was a long-range planning tool under the IGA or the City. He stated that he understood the need for transit planning and management but the tools were not in place for the developer to be required for the implementation of such a plan to serve the project. The commissioners felt that the phasing issues, the need for on-site parking (long and short term, over-flow), utility easements 'at grade and for future development, 2 level parking, the canyon wall-effect were stressed, transportation issues were important issues and still not addressed. Blaich stated the Library had another meeting scheduled at this time, so there have been no conclusions reached tonight therefore the meeting mus. t be continued. Ohlson noted the meeting would be continued to July 18th at C~ty Hall. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the meeting to July 18, 2000. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. /~Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11.2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ............................ , ............................................................. 1 DEcLARATIoN OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 TRUSCOTT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 1