Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010102' ASPEN' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 ISELIN PARK CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD/SPA CONDITIONAL USF .......................................................... 1 NEW HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PUD ........................................................................... 13 17 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 Bob Blaich, chai~man, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Bob Blaich, Steven Buettow, Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre. Staff in a~tendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City A~tomey; Joyce Ohlson, Nick Lelack, Community Development; Ed Sadler, Stephen Bossart, Asset Management; Jeff Woods, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jackie Lothian noted that Charles Vresilovic moved to the county; he resigned from the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Bob Blaich provided some rules of protocol for Planning and Zoning meetings. The review criteria will be made for the public at each meeting. Joyce Ohlson introduced the planning commission chair and staff. PUBLIC HEARING: ISELIN PARK CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD/SPA CONDITIONAL USE Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on the Iselin Park Conceptual/Final PUD/SPA Conditional Use. David Hoefer stated that the notice was received and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Joyce Ohlson distributed an addendum to the memo dated 12/27/00 from Steve Bossart, which was clarification of information in the staff report. Ohlson explained that this was a master planning of the property; the affordable housing portion of the property required special review in this zone district. The conditional use public hearing was required because of the recreational building in the park zone district. The applicant was the City of Aspen represented by the Asset Management Department, Steve Bossart and Ed Sadler. Ohlson stated that the proposal was for a 76,000 square foot swimming pool and ice rink facility including pertinent facilities within the structure as well as affordable housing. She said the process for tonight's meeting was to reacquaint the planning commission and public what this project was about and identify any issues prior to any formalized public review process. Staff provided the key issues which were: ~ Size, Scale, and Mass/Volume of Buildings ~) Traffic and Circulation ® Site access and Public Transportation opportunities ~) Service and Delivery access ® Parking ® Overall Site Plan (and how it relates to the school campus) ~ Architectural Style (comparability to the site and area) ® Landscaping and ® Trail Connections. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 200 Steve Bossart, Asset Management, stated that the last time that this was presented was May 304'. The purpose of this meeting was to bring the commission and public up to date. Bossart provided the history of the property beginning with the James E. Moore Pool being 25 years old and a bond passed in 1999 for the replacement of the pool. Bossart said that there was a private fund-raising ice group that came on board to raise money to build an adjacent ice facility. He said that the various consultants locally and from around the county were interviewed and a leisure pool concept was becoming more popular with the general public. Bossart said that the locals wanted a lap pool and a competitive pool for the schools to hold state-sanctioned swim meets here. He noted the Youth Center wanted to move their facility out to this facility; he said that it was a logical geographical location for the Youth Center. He stated that he has kept a meeting log with 13 public meetings but said that he did not keep track of the neighborhood or group user meetings, which were many. Bossart said that there was a strong consensus that this was the type of facility that would be done on the site. Bossart utilized a series of drawings to illustrate the pool designs, ice area, locker rooms, front desk and youth center. He said the lap pool was 6 lanes and 25 yards in length, which met the State needs; the leisure pool concept has zero entry depth going down to 3½ - 4 feet with a slide of river pool current. He noted that 90-95% of the time only 1 or 2 lanes of lap pools were utilized, so the lap pool could be used in part for a leisure pool. Bossart said that the recreation facility placement by the school campus provided excellent access for the kids to get to their programs after school. Bossart said that pedestrian access was made available through the trails system and another feature was the reduction of trip traffic for the kids after school activities. Bossart stated that Jim Charilier has done a parking study and will be available for the meeting on the 30th. The current Iselin parking provided 50 spaces; Bossart said this plan showed 120 at the pool area. He said between all the lots with the bridge across Maroon Creek Road to that lot, the total number of parking spaces would be 655. Bossart said that they tried to define what they wanted to do with the architecture, which was for a state of the art facility. He provided examples of what these types of facilities tended to look like, big boxes. Bossart said that the terrain allowed the ice level to be dropped below the pool level and keep in the Aspen Lodge feel and character. He said that materials were selected to withstand the sun with the lowest reflectivity. He noted that he checked with other resort community aquatic directors about the design and it met what the public wanted by a majority. He said that everything for every user group cannot be accommodated on th~s site. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 Ed Sadler asked about the hockey seating. Bossart responded that there were about 450 hockey seats. He said that they had talked about being a central clearinghouse for events scheduling, so that there would be a balance in the area for the evening or weekend. Roger Haneman asked what the constraints on the building envelope were. Bossart replied that there was a utility access easement on the adjacent property owners' land and the ball field was deed restricted with the setbacks needed. Jeff Woods responded that there was also a landfill issue where the softball fields were located. Steve Buettow asked about the traffic circulation for public transportation and if it was different from the delivery and service access. He asked if a huge event were scheduled where would over-flow parking be located. Bossart replied that the bus drop-offwas the closest to the front entrance of the facility, which was a 2nd level bridge entry. He noted that the alternative access for visking teams was to access from behind, which was primarily the service entrance with parking for employees. Buettow asked if there was a maximum parking figure, which over that figure would result in over-flow parking. Bossart referred to the Chailier report with the figure of 655. Bossart said the city and county were working out an (IGA) ~ntergovemmental agreement for enforcement of some of the parking issues. Woods stated that the Highlands parking issue would be enforced after this facility was built. Blaich stated the restricted use of the parking lot would effect the parking situation at the Highlands. Woods replied that once construction began there would be no parking at that lot for over a year. Ron Erickson said that this rink would be NHL and asked Which was larger an International Rink or NHL. Bossart replied that the International was 100'x 200' and NHL was 85' x 200'. Erickson asked the distances between the pools and the dressing rooms. Bossart replied that there would be a spiral staircase to the west of the ice arena and the check-in was at the front desk with the dressing rooms about 50-60 feet away; the pools were all at one level. Erickson noted that the original funding packet that was passed by the citizens of Aspen did not include the hockey rink. He asked if that financing had been solidified since this was a major component of the structure. Sadler replied that SPARC promised to raise 8 million dollars with targets to reach prior to any building; the building was designed so that portion could be deleted if not funded. Sadler stated that they will reach their first milestone. Woods noted that the youth center portion was funded by the sale of the current youth center; he said that City Council felt that this would work because the vote passed 3-1 in favor for this proposed facility. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 Eric Cohen stated that the parking issue was a problem. He said that the baseball parking seemed lacking with 2 fields. Woods stated that the Tiehack parking was actually public parking as part of their PUD agreement. Woods said that increased RFTA service would be part of the plan. Jasmine Tygre asked if the funding was not in place for the hockey rink would it still be built by the city. Ed Sadler responded that that portion of the building could be severed right at that line. Tygre asked if the ice was not built would the building be the same size and that area used for something else. Woods replied it would be initially open space but maybe something else in the future. Tygre asked the percentages used for each facility. Bossart replied that the ice with locker and warm room facilities would be about 50%, youth center was about 15%, lobby about 25% and the pool 40% or so. Tygre asked what the height of the lobby was to the point of the glass-enclosed area. Bossart replied the entry area at the walkway level was 45 feet to the peak. Erickson asked where the 2 tennis court were located and the soccer fields. Bossart replied that the soccer and ball fields were in the same location and the tennis courts were being redeveloped on the site of the old ones. Erickson said that his understanding was that the tennis courts would be moved to Truscott. Woods replied that Truscott would be the primary tennis court facility and these were recreational. Erickson asked if money would be spent to re-hab those tennis courts. Woods said not in the short time but eventually. Woods said the neighborhood wanted the tennis courts maintained as part of the neighborhood recreational facility. Erickson asked to clarify that as part of the SPA and how much was affordable housing, where the parking was located and if it were rental or for sale housing. Erickson asked how it would impact the complex. Bossart replied that the site was a tough one and the cost of housing was out of control. Bossart stated the city had credits from the construction of Water Place which were banked for other facilities ~n the future; housing has a formula for the number of employees generated (counting what already exists), which was 2.5. Bossart said that one two-bedroom employee unit would be built on the north side, probably a staff person would be housed there. Woods noted that there were about 36 credits available at Water Place; the housing would be for an on site caretaker. Haneman asked about seating for the pool area. Bossart said that temporary seating could be brought in. Haneman asked if other uses were planned for the ice arena because of the sound room. Bossart responded that it was an ice area and they were not planning for any other types of events with 450 seats. Woods stated 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 that with the SPARC partnership, it would be a primarily youth orientated facility, not like the facility in Vail, which was first a special events center. Woods said this facility was designed to be locally serving. Sadler stated the sound room was mostly for the figure skating and piped in music and not meant for concerts. Blaich asked where the ice disposal area was located. Woods replied there was an inside melt pit. Woods noted that they have worked with CORE to take advantage of solar and the terrain. Erickson asked if the volumetric requirements that were just passed would apply. Ohlson replied that those requirements applied only to residential. Public Comments: John McBride, public, stated that he felt that it was a great location. He said that he had one problem, which was that it was a NI-IL size rink and not an Olympic size rink. He mentioned his involvement with hockey. McBride stated that all of the rinks in'Europe were International size rinks but there were not that many Olympic size rinks in the United States. He said that he was currently working with Phillips Andover Academy that was building a new Olympic size rink for $$,000,000.00. He said that many people think that the NHL rinks are too small; he said that if we had an Olympic size rink many of the Olympic teams would want to train here in the fall. McBride said that the European Teams would want to train here. He said that from the point of view for the kids, the larger size rink produces better skaters and enables the mites, mini-mites and the squirts to have two games going on at once cross-ice. He said that the Olympic was better for public skating; it was safer and less dense. McBride said that you can have short track speed skating on an Olympic size rink and not on an NHL surface. He noted that an Olympic size rink could be made smaller but an NHL size rink could not be made larger and it was only 15 feet. McBride said that we already had an NklL size rink and we needed something bigger and better. He said that for 1% or 2% more he thought the rink could be made bigger. He said that he was not part of the SPA_KC group. He mentioned that he felt the city made a huge mistake when they turned down David Koch's offer to turn Wagner Park into ice skating with an endowment provided to change it back every spring/summer. He said that he hoped that we did not make another mistake and he felt that it would be a mistake like that if we did not go with an Olympic size rink. Lynn Mace, public, stated that she was president of the Maroon Creek Caucus; she asked if they knew of the correspondence that the Caucus had about Iselin since 1998. She said that there were Caucus concerns and City agreements that provided some restrictions, which never came to fruition. She said that it all seemed to have · 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 - stopped in 1999. Mace said that the last correspondence was in June on the declaration, covenants, conditions and restrictions with staff comments and nothing materialized afterwards. David Hoefer stated that he was not aware of that information and requested copies of the information. Mace said the concerns were still the same, parking, lighting, noise. Blaich noted that the Caucus should familiarize themselves with the staff report and the commission would study their reports when received. The applicants agreed to provide the Maroon Creek Caucus copies and the Caucus agreed to provide copies to the applicant. King Woodward, public, stated that he was previously the president of the Maroon/Castle Creek Caucus until May. He said the reason the agreement between the city and the caucus lapsed at that time was because we did not know what was going to happen. He said there were concerns about the use, parking, scheduling, and number of seats in the rink (at one time there were 1,000). He said that they were now in a position to discuss these issues. Woodward stated that for two years the caucus concerns with this project were the size, scale, mass, volume of the building, lighting, noise, parking and architectural design. He said the original plans included only an ice skating rink and a swimming pool, then the Youth Center came to the caucus with their proposal and it was accepted as a good idea, but the concerns were still size and scale. Woodward stated that they did not particularly care what went into the facility but the concern was what the facility would look Iike. He noted that when people drove up to the Highlands or Maroon Lake they wanted this to be a spectacular building to encompass an ice skating rink, youth center and a swimming pool. Woodward said that parking was a major concern for the caucus as well as the mass of the building; he said it was too large. Debra Bradford, public, asked the hours of operation. She requested that the structure be built with noise resistant materials and inquired about the lighting from the building and the parking lots. Jonathan Lewis, public, stated that he was a behind the funding for this project and asked why there wasn't more housing being accomplished at this location. He said the questions needed to be raised regarding more housing. L.J. Erspamar, public, stated that he was a board member of SPARC and Friends of the Aspen Recreation Complex. He thanked Jonathan Lewis and his partner for the help; he said that it looked like the funding would be in place by February 1 Erspamar stated that there was a desperate need for a complex like this one. He noted that any delay would be cost prohibitive. He stated that he would like an Olympic ice rink but that it couldn't be funded at this time. He noted that his kids (ages 10 and 12) were up a 5:00 a.m. to practice and the high school kids practiced 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 until 11:00 p~m. Erspamar said the money for the shell was available now. He stated that this pool would be a great asset to the community. Erspamar stated that it was mandatory that this town have 2 ice rinks. Georgia Hanson, public, stated that she was a member of the caucus and supported the idea of more housing. She said that she didn't agree with the caucus on the building being too large; she stated that she liked it. Hanson stated that accountability into the final plan was important to have all of the things that have been presented actually happen. She noted that the scheduling was promised to manage many different entities, she said this was vital. Larry Slater, public, stated that he was part of the task force and thanked Jonathan Lewis. He stated that he supported the pools, ice rink but was not around when the youth center move was proposed. He said that environmentally the Youth Center should be left where it was or put some place else in a separate lower building instead of the massive building. He said that controlled measures needed to be put into place. Slater mentioned there was talk of moving parts of the facility outdoors and lighting and noise would have to be addressed. He said that originally the building was 15 foot above road grade and now the building was 45 feet above grade. He asked if there was a written agreement in place with the school for parking. Slater stated that there was a great distance in the grade to the Tiehack parking lot. Steve Wicks, public, said that he had positive comments regarding the community and this bUilding would go further to make our community so much better. He noted that he attended many sporting events in town and it feels good to be a small town watching those events. Wicks said that to build this facility would build the community. Matt Vickers, public, stated that he was with SPARC as well and said that to add to what Steve said was that this was an amazing facility. He stated that this was a unique opportunity with the pairing of both private and public funds to make this facility a reality; it was not often that we have that cooperation. Vickers stated that SPARC had 36 months to raise the funds and they have raised the $4.3 million, which is due to the city on February 1s~. He said that this would be a reality that was needed for the community. King Woodward, public, said that the kitchen facilities portion of the plan were ftne as long as this did not become a restaurant. He noted that there was much discussion with the Castle/Maroon Caucus and Jeff Woods; he stated that there was an agreement with the City and the Caucus that this would not become just another 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02,200 restaurant. Blaich stated that P&Z was adamant about the restaurant be utilized for the facility only and not a destination restaurant. Jackie Broughton, public, stated that she wanted to back what Steve Wicks said and stated that Steve Bossart had gone out of his way to contact and meet with every user group and the Maroon Creek Caucus. She said that it was a great project and hoped it could go forward as soon as possible because it was really needed for the community. Toni Kronberg, public, said that she had some issues to present and distributed photos and a letter addressed to City Council to the commissioners. She stated thru everyone in the room had the same goals and provided the history of vote for the ice rink, pools and recreation since 1978. Kronberg said that Bill Stifling was the mayor at that time and the community was more interested in the Arts; she said that was the reason that the vote was defeated. Kronberg said that about 7 years later there was a second vote proposed by a public/private group, which was defeated by 14 votes. She said it was defeated because a separate taxing district was proposed, which would have placed a burden on the community. Kroenberg stated that the third time around the ice arena was not included in the voters package. She noted that she was a swimming instructor and began her quest for improved swimming facilities almost 23 years ago. She said that she served on the Iselin Moore Task Force for the last election and asked City Council to include the ice arena in the bond package. Kronberg commented that ~he felt that the reason it did not pass before was that the pool design was not right (a 4-lane pool) that did not serve the needs of the community. She said that the Iselin Moore Task Force did not want to take the chance of having the trails, fields, golf, tennis defeated because of the inclusion of the ice arena on the ballot. Kronberg noted that there was a private donor for $6,000,000.00 for the ice arena. Kronberg stated the concerns with the Iselin Moore were the number of seats, the parking, the size of the ice and that the City would not commit to the Ice Rink group. She said that the group pulled out because there was no commitment from City Council. Kronberg said that her goals have been the fields, the trails, the nordic, the bridges and that everything be achieved incrementally. She noted that the kids she worked with get up at 4:00 a.m. to practice on the ice and she can't get them into the pool for cross training. Kronberg said that the youth center at the pool would work great for her programs. Blaich asked Kronberg to make her points of things that needed to be changed or that were not included. Kronberg said that the bond was for construction of a new swimming pool not a leisure pool; she said the more water the better but the community priority was a swimming pool. She said there were 4 needs: competitive, recreational, leisure and schools. Kronberg said that this pool design did not meet the requirements for the United States swimming. She stated 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 that for the next meeting she invited representative from the United States Olympic Training Center; she said they'd explain what the needs were to host swim meets in this facility. This pool was proposed at 5,000 feet. Kronberg said that Silverthorne had a facility which met the standards of 3 pools (a competitive pool, kids pool, deep-water/therapy pool). She provided the commissioners with statistics from Silverthorne, which showed that they had 15,000 visitors to their facility each month. She noted the City of Aspen's proposal was one-third of facility at Silverthorne; she also invited the Silverthorne pool manager to the next meeting: She said that the safety aspects in the leisure pool were marked in purple, which meant that six lifeguards would be needed; six additional employees at $10.00 an hour equaled $60.00 an hour multiplied by 10 hours a day was $600~00 a day. Kronberg stated that the current design did not meet the demands; the school monopolized the pool six hours a day and that the area for the general public's use was very small. Kronberg noted that Silverthorne had a drowning last year because there were not enough guards to see the area and the raised platform. I~ronberg said that when swim meets were hosted there could be not be diving and competitive swimming happening at the same time, it was against the rules. She recommended an L-shaped pool and the incorporation of the scenery of the Maroon Bells into the design. She noted the loss of the outdoor pool and that the community master plans since 1978 stressed outdoors recreation in summertime. She said that she would put together a demographic with the numbers needed to support this facility. Kronberg noted that the rink monopolized the amount of space that was designated as a park (a passive area). She said that she asked Tom Moore if he had lifted the deed-restriction to add another softball field. Kronberg stated that she wanted to come up with a solution, which were 4 goals. A pool complex, 2 sheets of ice, in- fill housing and schools/transportation bus barn with 4 pieces of property. She said that if you get one wrong, you get two wrong; and if you get two wrong, you get them all wrong. She said that she has spoke to the schools (Tom Farrell) and the County Commissioners to make this plan work. She stressed that we have to get this right. K_ronberg said that the finance director told city council that before the new ice facility was opened, the operating facilities needed the right decisions to be made now, because if the right decisions were not made then there would be repercussions later on in the future. She did not want to see one of the ice rinks shut down; the current city council wanted to keep it as an ice area but future councils could change that use: Kronberg presented a letXer with kids signatures that she has taught since they were babies. She said that she invited these kids to the next meeting because there needed to be a warm water pool with a deep end. Kronberg showed the trophy that she received from the Swiss Team for the 24 hours of Aspen. She noted that the teams wanted to be able to go to a warm water 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02,200 I pool after the race and the closest pool was Glenwood. She said that she would put more together and be in sync for the next meeting. Norma Roberts, public, stated that she had two girls that were swimmers and her ninth grade daughter had to travel to Glenwood four nights a week and gets home at 8:30 p.m. then starts her homework. She attends Aspen High School but was on the Glenwood Springs swim team because there was no swim team in Aspen. Roberts said that her daughter was a state qualifying swimmer and that she supported the project but she believed that the configuration of the lap pool should be designed for the community because there could be money brought into the community if it were designed properly. Roberts stated that US Swimming should be consulted if they have not been so far. Larry Slater, public, stated that from the 01/02/01 memo the issues included off campus parking for events to acknowledge that the Tieback parking was seasonal. Blaich responded that the Tiehack parking was probably more desirable in the summer because of the conditions; according to land use it had to be available all year. Slater said that the new parking lot was the same size. Jeff Woods replied that it was not and explained that it were past the spruce trees to the tennis courts with landscaping. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for the Iselin Park Conceptual/Final PUD/SPA Conditional Use to January 30, 2001. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. Ohlson stated that the ~ssues from tonight's meeting had to do with the programming of the complex itself. These issues were the depth of the water, the layout of the actual pools and the size of the sheet of ice, which were bordering on not being in the purview of the planning commission, from the site planning perspective, the planned unit development to the review criteria. She said that she likened that to the planning commission reviewing how big a walk-in closet should be in the review process. She cautioned the public as to what those design elements were and whether or not the planning commmsion had purview over those issues. Hoefer noted that there was fine line but it was up to the board on what they want to hear; he said that it was a public project and ultimately a county decision. Blaich stated that he did not consider himself an expert on pool design or ice design and he said that he relied on staff, the architects and the consultants. Blaich said the issues were of concern from the public (Toni Kronberg) challenging the decisions that have been taken. Blaich said that, speaking for himself, Toni could convince the people who were putting the plan together by bringing in experts to support her claims. Blaich said that he found it difficult to go on the 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02~ 2001 basis of an individual, even as experienced as Toni is; he said that the board had to rely upon on the "hired guns". Blaich invited Toni to come to the next meeting prepared to deal with the issues and to discuss those issues with staff prior to the next meeting. Blaich asked for evidence of the effect of this building against the surrounding terrain, either a computer-generated drawing or photomontage. Bossart responded that they had those items and would present them at the next meeting. Blaich stated that the effects on the environment were important and requested site sections from different angles. Steven Buettow asked that the site sections include the pools and the 45-foot height. Buettow asked for the v~ewpoints from different sections of the road. Jeff Woods noted that there were photos of the surveyed heights with balloons at the right heights. Blaich asked if the reason for the height was an expression for the community and the other reason was for the climbing wall. Bossart replied that the climbing wall did not dictate the height of the building; he said the various roof heights made a lot of sense. Bossart said there were some neighbors who have echoed that and he said that he understood how the neighbors felt but it was a small portion of the building. Blaich reiterated that better evidence was needed on the affects on the environment. Blaich noted that Harris Hall was a very effective building that was sunk into the ground and it was accomplished so that it did not affect the environment. Ron Erickson stated that he was really concerned about the employee housing. He said that from previous meetings the board requested to maximize the number of employee umts to the site. He stated that he was not happy with the trade-off of one-employee unit and 2 tenms courts. Erickson said that he was concerned with the city taking credit for the city development (Water Place) for city employees, which was built with public funds. Erickson said that the number of employee units was not being increased because those units were already built and occupied, he said this was a new project with no employee housing. He noted that the tennis courts were going to be located at Truscott as a centralized tennis facility. He said that they were trying to make this project do too many things for too many people. He said that he disagreed with staff on the P&Z position of the size of the ice because it affects the bulk and size of the building. Erickson asked for the difference in price of the NHL and Olympic size ice rink; he said that if this was our opportunity to have the Olympic size sheet of ice, then the City should do it and pay the difference. Blaich agreed with Ron on the ice issue, and said that Jeff Woods indicated that they could not extend the ice another 15 feet because it would impinge upon other uses of the land. Blaich asked for a presentation on what the plan really means. Erickson asked if they had looked at structuring the building in another direction; he noted that baseball fields were cheap to build in comparison. 11 ..ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 Jeff Woods replied that a million dollars was not cheap to put in with a drainage and irrigation system on the ball fields. Jasmine Tygre agreed with everything that Ron said and added that so much money was being spent on this facility so why not do it right. She said to call in whatever experts needed to be called in to create the facility that was really needed. Tygre said that the testimony was heard from people with specialized knowledge in certain areas that were meant to be addressed by this building and the experts were needed for input. Buettow agreed. Eric Cohen asked if the SPARC group did not support the International size. LJ Erspamar replied that it was about a 50/50 deal and in the beginning they went that direction but the costs were prohibitive at a million and a half more. LJ said that he could not represent everyone in the group and they would re-review the plans~ Jonathan Lewis stated that the concern was for the entirety of the project and the overall plan rather than the ice specifically, even though they were classified as "the ice people". Cohen said there had been strong emphasis on growth out towards Highlands, Cohen said that from Smuggler Mountain at night you can see the lights going all the way to the Highlands, so the development will be there. He said the tennis courts were part of a deal struck with the neighborhood but it seems that the golf and tennis area were already set. He said that it did seem that it would be expensive to maintain these tennis courts and seem to be an impediment for a special interest. Cohen stated that a much better use for the space would be employee housing. Larry Slater responded that Council agreed on those tennis courts remaining in the CC&R's. Slater said it did not make sense that everybody in the Highlands area had to drive out to the airport to play tennis. Blaich said that if there was an agreement with the city then the commission would have to factor that into it but it did not change the opinion of this commission for affordable housing somewhere on the site. Woods reiterated that the site for the tennis courts was a landfill site and it was not easily built upon and realistically could not have a building on it. Cohen said some of the points that Toni brought up illustrated some of the problem areas of the design and said that he would be interested in hearing from the people from Summit County on the size, design and length of the pool. Erickson asked staff to review the concerns on this project at conceptual level and to be prepared to address the concerns. Bossart responded that architects and consultants were hired as experts in this field and that there was input from users, neighbors, council and competitive groups. Bossart said that he consulted with US Swimming, the NCAA, the Colorado Athletic High School Association to 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02~ 2001 determine the configuration for the pools; he said they were consulting with the best authorities that they could find. Cohen asked to review some o£the recommendations from those organxzations. Blaich asked that the key issues be delineated on why to do it one way or another. Blaich asked for the experts to be prowided for the information requested. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m. Eric Cohen second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: NEW HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PUD Ron Erickson noted that Martha Madsen was in attendance for this hearing but wasn't at this time. Bob Blaich opened the public hearing with no public in the audience. Nick Lelack stated that technically it was a public meeting and not a public hearing because it was conceptual land use development. Joe Wells, applicant planner, stated the architectural issues should be addressed since Charlie Kaplan, architect, came from New York to attend this meeting. Lelack noted that the density for the site was proposed at 15 units (11 affordable housing units and 4 free market units) which met the lot area requirements from the code for this size lot. The lot was about 53,000 square feet; after slope reduction it was about 26,000 square feet. Lelack used the 1995 Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Proposal for a traffic study and the current Boomerang traffic studies. He said that the trail connections and easements were a critical to the project. He said that one trail design crossed above the property and the other co.ming down through the property terminating at 5th Street connecting with the pedestrian bikeway. Lelack stated that exact trail easement location would be decided by final review with the Parks Department recommended approval. Lelack stated the R-15 zone district allowed almost 10,724 square feet of affordable housing buildings and 16,494 square feet of free market housing. The allowed height would be 25 feet and the proposal was for 21 feet for the closest structure to West Hopkins with a fiat roof and 25 feet for the one behind it with the free market structure in the back, which would be between 30 and 32 feet in height. Staff felt the proposal was comparable to the other projects in the neighborhood. 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 200! Lelack stated that site access was the key with internal disagreement (community development and engineering). The applicant propose.d, the access be off-aligned ;v ;haii " . . S4~e~et~t~tthY~,e. ngmeenng. -felt the access should d,rectly align with 5th Street e ~treets would be closed. Blaich noted those streets would be closed if light rail were to become a reality. Ohlson responded that the streets would be closed anyway with the Entrance to Aspen plan. The commissioners requested clarification of the street closures to Main Street. Lelack stated that there was a lot of pedestrian traffic year round but not that much automobile traffic. He said that this was an oppormnit3~ to combine the Boomerang access with this project's east access. Lelack said that he researched the Colorado Midland right-of-way and in 1995 HPC recommended that this property be placed on the historical preservation ~nventory but it was never forwarded to City Council. He said that much of the Midland right-of-way had been built upon and therefore the integrity had gone away; this was not on the historic list. Lelack stated that 20 on site parking spaces were being provided and recommend approval with the conditions listed. Wells stated that conditions were acceptable. Buettow asked if5th Street were to be aligned to the site, could the buildings be moved to accommodate that change. Kaplan responded that the site plan would be compromised; the first two affordablebraidings' ' would be split (2 units in front). Kaplan stated that this plan seemed like a better solution. Erickson asked if they considered using the roof as roof deck space; he said it did not affect his thoughts on the overall project. Wells responded that they would look at that possibility in more detail for the next submission as well as the ADU. Tonight's approval was only for conceptual. Blaich asked staff that if Engineering did not want to do this project in this way, could they be over-ruled. Ohlson responded that the staff was up front with the Engineering Department about their plans. She said that she felt that th~s was not an additional street as much as it was an entrance to a parking court; a technical engineering fix was not applicable to this situation. Ohlson said that the trip generation from this development doesn't warrant it be considered as a street. Kaplan said that some housing would be lost if 5th Street had to be straightened through the project. The commission noted that should be brought up to City Council. Cohen stated that the alternative to making the street straight and lose some affordable housing would be to put in some speed bumps and a four way stop. Erickson noted this alignment was a lot like Spring Street on the way to the 14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 02, 2001 Aspen Alps but tra~c was about 10 times more at the Alps. EricksOn stated that there would be one road cut if both projects used the same entrance. Haneman said that moving the stop sign back 5 feet for visibility wOuld aid in safety. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend City Council approve the New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development as it meets the criteria set forth in the staff memo, with the following conditions: 1. The Final Application shall include detailed descriptions of two (2) trails across the property to be dedicated public trail easements. One trail shall be across the lower portion of the property connecting the existing trail to West Hopkins Avenue and the other across the upper portion of the property. The Parks Department shall approve the trail easements. 2. The Final Application shall demonstrate how the project will implement Green Development Strategies as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. a.) Use of gas log appliances. Pollution reduction and energy conservation, b.) Occupant recycling. Areas for glass, metal, plastic and newspaper, c.) Waste management. Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and minimize trips to the landfill, including separate dump containers for wood and other potential recyclables. d.) Destratification fan systems. Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living areas to decrease heating loads, e.] Attic fan systems. Naturally ventilate building, reducing the need for air conditioning from solar gain. f.) Comply or exceed energy code requirements. g.) Landscaping. Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use. h3 Bike storage areas, i.~ Trail. To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement, j.) Erosion control. Measured specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to minimize damage to vegetation and ground stability, k.) Site preservation and restoration. Topsoil to be preserved for re-ase in areas of disturbance. Site disturbance limited. Intensive restoration plan to ensure proper re-growth and stabilization of disturbed areas. 3. The Final Application shall address the Housing Authority's requirement to investigate additional Green Development Strategies, including: a.) Building Commissioning. b.) Asbestos-free building, c.) CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting. d.) Recycled materials, e.} Building materials, f.) Water conservation, g.) Certified wood products, h.) Human comfort, i.) Energy efficient lighting, j.) Light pollution, k.) Indoor air quality. I.) Construction air quality plan. 4. The Final Application shall include a long-term hazard mitigation and containment plan to protect the development from rock falls, snow slides, and other natural hazards. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5. The site contains an old abandoned septic system. The Applicant shall comply with Pitkin County Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of the system and properly disposing of waste material. 6. The Applicant shall develop traffic reduction measures for the project prior to final submission in order to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements. The traffic reduction measures shall be approved by the City's Environmental Health Department. 7. The landscape plan shall indicate that the native areas will be treated with the Parks Department's recommended seed mix. 8. A 5- foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and removal on each side of sidewalks and trails shall be indicated on the final site plan. 9. The final site plan shall show the areas of the dedicated public trail easements, approved by the Parks Department. 10. The buildings shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system, approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. Il. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of the approved building envelope and access envelope. 12. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-svay unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. 13. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 14. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets 15 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING cOMMIsSION JANUARY 02:2001 during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 15, Ail uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 16. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. ROB Eriekson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Eriekson, yes; Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaieh, yes. APPROVED 6-0. MOTION: Erie Cohen moved for the approval ufa shared entrance with the Boomerang and the New West Hopkins project. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 6-0. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Steven Buettow second. APPROVED 6-0. ~,~(ckie Lothian, Dept~ty City Clerk 16