Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.19990622 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 Special Joint Meeting with Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Council Chambers, Cit~ Hall Aspen, Colorado Draft: 1st INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: Pitkin County Commissioners Peter Martin, Chair Steve Whipple, Vice Sheri Sanzone Doug Unfug Peter Thomas Gayle Embrey (arrived late) City of Aspen Commissioners Bob Blaich, Chair Jasmine Tygre, Vice Roger Hunt Tim Mooney Roger Haneman Ron Erikson Staff Lance Clark Julie Ann Woods 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. He noted that although this was a joint meeting with the City of Aspen P&Z, the County would make the formal, recommendation. Peter further stated that County P&Z Commissioner Sheri Sanzone has a conflict however, she will remain in the room for purposes ora quorum. There was some discussion amongst the commission as to whether Tim Mooney should step down due m a possible conflict. The decision was that he should not. Peter introduced each of the commissioners and staff members. II. COMMENTS MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 Commissioner Comments A gity P&Z member noted that it was their custom to terminate the meetings at 7:00. Staff Comments Lance Clarke noted that August 1T" was listed as a Long Range Meeting and the City and County Long Range Planners have asked that the commissioners reserve that for a potential City/County Joint Meeting. Public Comments There were no public comments. II. DISCUSSION A. Buttermilk Master Plan and 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, rezoning, 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. Process: Lance Clarke pointed out the City Council and BOCC's desire to "jointly'? review this application due to its location and functional importance to the City. He noted that this is an informal "joint review" process and that there is not an intergovernmental agreement. The process will likely take four or five meetings before all the issues'and items of concern have been adequately considered and a recommendation can be forwarded to the BOCC. He stated that if possible they would like to schedule one meeting per month noting a desire to reserve July 27~ as the next meeting. The topics for each meeting will be determined in consultation with the Applicant, the Forest Service and the P&Z and can include transportation, proposed gondola issues, on-moumain improvemems, growth management issues, etc... Lance noted that there is an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD required as a pan of this revie~v process. Additionally there is a code amendment to the AF Ski Zone district that is required. Aspen Ski Company Presentation: Bill Kane began by stating that the Buttermilk Master Plan has been a long time coming, noting the P&Z's request that they not bring another plan in until at least a year after the Aspen Mountain Master Plan. He stated that they wanted to bring a Master Plan forwm-d that is responsive to many community issues such as housing, transportation, the MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 en~'ance to Aspen project and the light rail transit plan etc... Bill stated that they have initiated a permit process with the US Forest Service and are operating under an agreement to Conduct an assessment to make sure they are in compliance with the Forest Service. Using a map presented at the meeting, Bill pointed out the location of the proposed new structures as well as the existing structure of the mountain. The following is a summary of the significant and/or new programs, structures, and activities in the Applicant's proposals: Buttermilk Base Area · New childcare center · New Skico retail and rental shop · Independent retail · Neighborhood commercial · Skico corporate offices · Parking structure · Transit "plaza" · Affordable housing (73 units) · Special events, concert · Summer kids camps · Summer rental and retail · Summer use of Bumps Buttermilk On-Mountain · New Tieback lift (one lift, top to bottom) · Remove Savio lift · Increased chairs on Summit Express lift · Midway l~Ing point added to West Buttermilk lift, speed increased · Gondola from Highlands base to Buttermilk summit · Rebuild Cliffhouse · Regrade summit · Summer use of Summit Express lift (biking, hiking) · Summer use of gondola Hi~,h/ands Base · Gondola terminal on top floor of parking structure · Lift tower at base The intent of the plan is to take two ski areas, Buttermilk and Highlands, which, are basically straggling, and come forward with a proposal whereby they can be combined into one inter connected complex. This would represent a ski area of a little over eleven hundred acres that would overnight become the second largest ski area in Colorado. US Forest Service Presentation: Jim Stark of the US Forest Service stated that the Forest Service generally likes to take a fresh look at things every 7 to 10 years and the 1984 Buttermilk Master Plan is due 3 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 for a second look now. He stated that in 1994 they had taken a look at some short term ~mprovements and had actually approved quite a few ofth~ elements that the Aspen Ski Company is proposing to the commission today. As part of that process they had asked to see a complete master plan with any future improvements. Jim stated that the ski company had come to them last summer with some preliminary ideas and they had jointly decided to hire some consultants to look at some of the base line data and they are hoping to use that data in their analysis. Jim stated that the initial scoping process is complete and they have received comments back on that. They have assembled an inter- disciplinary team of forest service specialists to review the existing data and they have a resource management plan draft recently done by a consultant in Steamboat. Rob Iwamoto, the District Ranger for Aspen, stated that they are looking ar a ten year planning period. He stated that if the Ski Company wasn't contemplating this within that period they would not consider it. He stated that they have expanded their studies to specialty areas such as wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, etc.., because it was more efficient to expand those areas knowing tha~veral years out they will have to look at Buttermil~Highlands and potentially Asper~as well. He stated that they had had several meetings with Lance to talk about how they might be able to streamline things. They had agreed upon certain area that they could both take leadership in .and then use each other as referrals. He stated he was very encouraged by that meeting. Discussion GlemHorn clarified for the public that the City and the County do not sit together as a joint commission for commercial growth management and that this is considered County jurisdiction. Lance responded that the City is invited to participate, but will not be voting. Bill Kane stated that based upon the public response the Ski Company is contemplating holding a public meeting in which their Specialists, would be present. Charles ~stated that he is a partner in the firm of Sb2-n~t and Larsen and explained that they are a national planning law £n'm and apply professional law services to public and private clients in approximately 30 states and have been doing this for about 25 years. Charles stated that he is representing Marcella Larsen, a former member of the P&Z commission, and her mother Wendy Larsen, Charles' partner, on a number or parcels of land that are close to the proposed gondola. Charles stated that his reason for being here tonight was to encourage the commission to take a comprehensive look at the future of skiing in Aspen and the economic and visual impacts. Charles pointed out the line on that map that represents the conduit from Buttermilk to Highlands and the amount of land that it traverses. He stated that although it wasn't reflected so on the map that it was over a mile in length. He stated that this conduit goes above various parcels of privately owned land and emphasized the privately owned land as well as the Highway 82 views that this would impact. He pointed out that there were virtually no details g~ven regarding this conduit and that "the devil is in the details". He stated that although the Aspen Ski Company has made a good argument for the improvement needs of the Ski Company they haven't addressed the impacts to the privately owned parcels or the needs MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 of the owners of those parcels. Additionally, Charles emphasized that the whole purpose of the proposed document is listed as bringing in new.visitors to Aspen and pointed the various impacts that this would have on the community, such as traffic congestion, affordable housing and other growth issues. Charles noted the importance of this issue to the individual interests of the valley as well as the City and the County as a whole. He encouraged the commission to make the gondola a "threshold issue" and to get the necessary details to come to an appropriate and informed decision. Charles did distribute further materials to the commission for review as well as documents of his credentials. Peter Martin thanked Charles for his presentation and stated that they appreciate his presence at the meeting as well as his experience and expertise. He stated that it was the intent of the commission, of course, to make an informed decision. Responding to Charles' presentation, Bill Kane, stated that the Ski Company has worked hard and will continue to work hard in the furore to make this as low impact of a facility as possible. Bill noted the proposed towers and stated that the tallest tower that would be required would be 70 feet. In comparison he noted several other existing towers which stand higher than 70 feet. Bill emphasized the benefits that the Ski Company perceives as a part of this proposal. He stated that they believe there is a measurable transportation benefit as well as the skier experience and winter tourism experience in Aspen will be fundamentally beuer as a result of having these improvements in place. He stated that the Ski Company will work very carefully to respond to the neighbors~ concerns about the impacts of this lift including, visual and noise impacts. Peter Martin responded that they would deal with each of these issues in detail and invited public comment at this time. Public Comtnents:c~~ ~., Michael./c~, a Maroon Creek Valley resident, stated that Bill Kane had assured him that the highest tower would be 30 feet and that the gondolas would be below those 30 feet. He stated that although he understood that this is the only way they can build them, 70 feet against these mountains is huge. Michael pointed out that trying to compare this to Aspen Mountain which is on a ski area to a piece of National Forest that is not on a ski ..ar~q~.a tremendous disgrace. - John 9.(~, repr[senting the Aspen Ski Company, stated that transportation to Buttermilk is very family unfriendly and noted the benefits that the proposed changes would have for families. He stated that shuttling people back and forth on a bus or in a taxicab is quite a different experience completely and a very expensive solution to the problem. i~leeting Schedule: Peter asked if the commissioners would like to discuss scheduling. Lance stated that he would like to schedule the July 27th meeting for certain and stated that the gondola may be an appropriate topic for this meeting. Lance stated that the Forest Service, the Ski Company and the County are working on some visual simulations and he does not know 5 MINUTES of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 22, 1999 if these will be ready in time for the July 27~ meeting so he would rather not specifically state that the topic would be on the gondola. A member of the City P&Z stated that he would probably be out of town for this meeting. Peter stated that the commission would rely on staff and the applicant to set up a schedule for the upcoming meetings based upon availability and the issues ,and whether they can be addressed in time. Another member asked if they could get the materials for their review as quickly as possible, at least a week in advance. Ill. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.