HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.agmc.20010220 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
ISELIN PARK EXEMPTION FROM GMQS ......................................................................................................... 1 M
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
Bob Blaich, chairman, opened the special meeting at 5:30 p.m. in Council
Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Jasmine Tygre, Eric
Cohen, Ron Eriekson, Roger Haneman, Steven Buettow, Bob Blaich, Peter Martin,
Paul Rudnick, John Howard, Steve Whipple, Peter Thomas and Michael Augello.
Staff in attendance were: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager; David Hoefer,
Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Cindy Houben, Community Development;
Ed Sadler, Stephen Bossart, Asset Management; Tim Anderson, Recreation; Bud
Eyler, Pitkin County; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. '
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ISELIN PARK EXEMPT/ON FROM GMQS
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing and inquired as to the number of vofing
commissioners. Peter Martin responded that there would be an even number of
city and county commissioners voting tonight.
Joyce Ohlson explained that this public hearing was to consider the exemption
from the scoring provisions of the Growth Management Commission with a
recommendation to City Council. The provisions of the code stated that an
essential public facility that may be exempted from the Growth Management
competition scoring. Ohlson noted that this pool complex would be placed on the
existing James E. Moore Pool site. She utilized maps anc~ drawings to show the
property location in relation to the high school.
Ohlson said the parcel was 19.35 acres with ball fields and 2 tennis courts in place.
She said the building was about 80,000 square feet with pools, an ice rink, youth
center, locker rooms, affordable housing, minor retail component, snack bar and
administrative offices. Ohlson noted that an essential public facility must serve an
essential public purpose; it provides for growth but does not promote growth; it is
available for general use and serves the needs of the city. She stated that the
Planning Commission had more than 3 meetings on this project. One of the
conditions of the restaurant was that it shail not be used to a~ract the public for
non-users of the Iselin facility or off-premises catering.
Ohlson said that there was a need to mitigate for 19.3 full-time employees. She
said that housing wanted to re-evaluate the full-time employees. She said that the
credit from the Water Place Housing Development would be used for some of the
employee mitigation. The proposal had 120 parking spac.es as opposed to the
1
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
existing 65. Ohlson said that parking enforcement was a necessity by the different
entities utilizing the area; a formalized agreement with the city and county needed
to be drafted.
Ohlson stated that the need for basic services was included in the criteria. She said
that there were energy conservation strategies and environmental health provided a
PM~0 mitigation plan. She noted that there was a storm water management plan
and grading plan included in the criteria. Ohlson noted there were two resolutions
from the planning commission. She said that the second resolution (#7) limited the
height to 48 feet instead of the proposed 58-foot height limit. She stated that
Resolution #7 was proposed to make the structure more compatible with the
natural surroundings and the character of the existing vicinity and se~ting. Staff
recommended approval by the growth management commission.
Pan1 Rudnick asked what were the plans for the existing Ice Rink in the West End.
Ed Sadler replied that a million and half in renovation was being done beginning in
April with a new sheet of ice and locker rooms.
Ron Erickson said that the housing mitigation according to the applicant was to
come from Truscott not Water Place. Erickson stated that he did not accept Water
Place as employee mitigation and stated that he wanted that clarification tonight.
Sadler responded that City Council made a commitment to buy units at Truscott as
mitigation, but he said that could change. Erickson asked for that to be included in
the Resolution. Ohlson replied that it could not be changed on Resolution #5 but
that it would be relayed to City Council.
Jasmine Tygre said that the memo stated that the employee mitigation was for
19.35 and asked how 4 units made up the difference. Ohlson replied that she
thought that Water Place was going to be used for mitigation.
Sadler stated that the construction project would take about 18 or 19 months not
including the Tiehack Bridge. Peter Martin asked where that bridge came from.
Sadler responded that it would connect the Tiehack parking lot to this project with
about ½ of the funds from private entities. Sadler explain'ed the facility layout with
the NHL size ice rink and the locker rooms on the lower most floor, the
maintenance facilities for the ice rink above the lobby area, the snack bar and
check-in along with the pool. He said above that was the entry level from the
parking lot and youth center.
Erickson stated that the transportation issues were important. Sadler responded
that there were many unresolved bus issues with scheduling and routes. Sadler
2
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
stated that the county Wanted the city to annex the road but there were some issues
with the condition of the road. Sadler said that the county will have an outside
assessment of the road done. He said that the other issue that runs a long the road
was parking and who would the enforcement the parking; currently it was
suggested that the city do the enforcement but there were questions with city
employees enforcing county laws and where the £mes went. Sadler said that the
city was willing to be the enforcement agency and the city and county were
working on an IGA (intergovernmental agreement). Sadler said that there was a
deed issue with the shared parking and coordination ofth.e parking. He said that
there would be much promotion of mass transit and coordination of all of the
events. Randy Ready stated that the IGA needed to cover all along Maroon Creek
Road, the Five Trees Metropolitan District, the area around the schools, the Nordic
Trails and the Aspen Valley Ski Club. Sadler noted that the city inherited the
Tieback parking agreement, which was currently for daytime parking only and
would be reviewed for future use.
Steve Whipple said that the landscaping was a problem in the county and asked if
there was a landscape mitigation plan. Sadler replied that the big oaks would be
le~t and the design for the road crossing was being Worked out with the Parks
Department with a substantial budget. Whipple responded that did not comfort
him; he asked who was responsible for the landscape plan. Ohlson answered that
there was a detailed landscape plan as part of the submittal and there was a
condition in the Council Ordinance on the landscape mitigation that would be a
reviewed making sure that it was installed properly. Ohlson said that once the
landform was installed it would help connect the building to the ground. Ohlson
said that the landscape form was meant as an impediment, so children would not
want to cross the road and take the bridge instead.
Ohlson noted that the City Planning Commission recommended to Council
(Resolution #7) to lower the height of the building to forty-eight feet (48').
Cindy Houben stated that an IGA could be worked out between the city and
county; there were conditions. Blaich stated that there were problems that needed
to be Solved that City Planning and Zoning left to be worked out and many were
resolved. Ready stated that there were options to solve the parking problems; one
was annexation, but the City did not want the responsibility of the infrastructure of
the road replacement. Ready said that there was to be an independent assessment
of the road. Ready noted the other end of the spectrum was an IGA that would
meet the spirit and intent to have City employees deputized to write County
parking tickets or the City to fund County employees to write the County parking
3
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
tickets. Ready said that there were legal agreements that could be resolved prior to
the facility opening~
Erickson asked Houben about the $3,000,000.00 impact fees. Houben replied that
last year the county adopted road impact fees that did not cover the urban
boundaries and there was not a category for this type of facility in the description,
so she developed a formula based upon an institutional and an office facility.
Houben said that the cost was $3,900~00 per 1,000 square feet of construction if
this facility were under the county. Houben said that also an independent
assessment would be done for this type of facility. Rudnick asked what
arrangement regarding the road was made with the Highlands when it was annexed
into the city. Houben responded that there were specific dollars associated with the
construction timing of the Highlands and there were di'fferent monies to help with
the road. Bud Eyler said that there were funds of $350,000.00 for the roundabout
and entrance to Aspen and an additional $650,000.00 was for Maroon Creek Road
improvements. Ohlson stated that pieces along Maroon Creek Road were in the
city and in the county.
Patti Clapper stated that there was a movement forward t~wards an IGA on the
road for parking enforcement. She said that her concern was that it was not
specifically addressed as a condition of approval and that if it were a private sector
developer they would not be able to go forward with an approval without an IGA
in hand. Peter Martin stated that also the other joint agreements should be in place
prior to issuance of building permit. Ohlson responded that condition #6 was a
formalized agreement regarding parking enforcement between the City of Aspen
and Pitkin County to be provided prior to certificate of occupancy. Ohlson noted
that this was also a recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning. Blaich
stated that they wanted as much clarification as possible. Erickson stated that he
made that condition to be a formalized agreement. Erickson said that there was not
that much confidence in getting IGA's accomplished. Clapper agreed.
Clapper said that she looked at the Tiehack Parking Lot and spoke to the MCDC
agreement that stated that the city was replaced by the county in the agreement but
there had been no contact made with the MCDC from the city. Clapper said that
there was a concern with the legal language of the agreement concerning public
and private. Clapper said that she supported the facility but there were many
factors and issues that needed to be addressed involving the parking lot and bridge.
Martin said that if this were forwarded without the IGA in place couldn't City
Council change the agreement. Blaich noted that the County had every right to ask
the questions and be satisfied with the answers prior to GMQS approval. Rudnick
4
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
said that if he understood that the Growth Management Committee could have
conditions that went to City Council, which then Council could change the
conditions. Blaich noted that it was no different than what County P&Z did and
then the BOCC could change the conditions. Ohlson clarified that the Growth
Management Committee made a recommendation that this was an essential public
facility utilizing the criteria to judge the application. Rudnick stated that if they
imposed a condition and Council ignored that condition, then this was a
meaningless act. Ohison responded that Council based their findings on the same
criteria.
Clapper said that dates and square footage in the housing authority's memo had
discrepancies. Steve Bossart said that the housing office used 57,685 net usable
square footage with a recalculation 58,062 square feet.
Toni Kronberg, public, stated that from the Tiehack parking lot to the parking at the
school was a greater distance than the walking distance from Hunter Creek to City
Hall. She said that she wanted the best transportation for kids and in the winter
there was wind, snow and sleet for an unsafe crossing with a long walk to the bus.
She said that she was at the school board meeting, tonight; the discussion was that
parent teacher conferences and other school events generated higher parking needs
and the school board memo wanted an IGA in place. She said that they would
peruse their own parking plan to eliminate the above issues. She noted that her
recommendation was not to charge for parking because it would then be overflow
parking for Highlands. Kronberg said that Randy Ready did an excellent job with
the roundabout for the "kiss and ride" for buses but there wasn't anywhere for a car
to drop off anyone for the Highlands or Maroon Creek bus at the roundabout. She
asked that the "kiss and ride" be researched to make the transportation work along
with getting a dedicated bus route. Kronberg stated that t/etter transportation
planning would be a bus stop on both sides of the road to prevent the kids from the
temptation of running across the road. She inquired about the funding for the
bridge and moving the pedestrian bridge for a better transfer to the buses.
Kronberg stated that the essential public facility should provide affordable housing.
She asked that the 2 conditions for the perimeter around the pool be put back into
the conditions, the amount of deck space around the pool for compliance for the
swimming guidelines.
Martin stated that he had read Toni's letters. He suggested continuing this meeting
to give the county and city an opportunity to work out an annexation agreement on
the road and for the employee housing mitigation; he said that he did not want to
delay the project. Martin stated that once the project passed this board, there
would be no influence over the project. Blaich stated that there were several
5
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
options and that timing was a problem not to put the project out of the construction
phase. David Hoefer recommended continuing to a very close date certain so that
staff could work out the details but the intergovernmental.agreements probably
would not be reached at any time soon. Hoefer stated that clearly the issues would
be worked out. Sadler responded said that the county's study would not be
completed in anytime soon and that would put the project off for a year. Martin
asked if there could be letters of intent. Eyler stated that the road report should be
a straight and simple completed in about a month. Blaich stated that the public
safety issues had to be resolved and City P&Z put their faith in the issues being
resolved. Blaich suggested voting on the continuance first. Ready stated that the
condition City P&Z set forth that a formalized agreement regarding parking
enforcement in the City of ~4spen and Pitkin County be provided prior to certificate
of occupancy was taken very seriously; he said that these were public safety issues
to be resolved prior to occupancy. Ready said that both residents of the city and
county were patrons of the schools and the recreation facility.
Houben stated that the condition did not include the operation, maintenance and
parking of Maroon Creek Road and if it did it would go a lot further.
Peter Thomas stated that he felt that they have not had tho time to discuss the
issues and whether or not they have been mitigated. Thomas said that there was
little opportunity to discuss the parking and housing and he said that he had 4
questions. Thomas said that he was not in favor of a vote on the plan as it stood
now.
Whipple said that he agreed with both Peters but holding it up now really did not
matter because City Council had the ability to change the agreement in place.
Martin stated that action from this commission had to take place prior to a City
Council decision, no matter if approved or denied. Whipple said that he was
confident that some sort of transportation plan would work and he said that he did
not know what would be resolved by delaying a decision tonight. Rudnick said
that an intergovernmental agreement could be in place, which defined in good faith
negotiations toward a standard that would equitably for the expenses between the
county and the city. Rudnick said that this agreement would in the long run satisfy
the county's development department the adequacy of the parking issues. Rudnick
said that currently there was nothing to survive the City Council level. Rudnick
said that everyone wanted the project so why couldn't the'City and County get
together and develop an agreement to negotiate the details of due course. Blaich
stated that everyone wanted this facility, so please make the motion. Erickson
noted that the county has not had the time to have their questions answered.
6
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
MOTION: Peter Martin moved to continue the public hearing to
February 27, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote:
Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Whipple, yes; Buettow, no; Rudnick, yes;
Thomas, yes; Blaich, no; Martin, yes; Howard, no; Haneman, yes.
APPROVED 7-3.
Erickson stated that the resolution that went to City Council was different from the
one that P&Z approved. Ohlson replied that she changed the resolution to reflect
what changes P&Z or staffrecommended. She said that the council resolution did
not reflect the reduction of the building height because staffdid not support that.
Blaich asked about the swimming pool deck distances. Ohlson said that there were
no standards for staffto get involved in that or even in the. depth of the water but it
was noted in the memo to City Council. Blaich asked that the P&Z concerns be
presented to City Council. Ohlson stated that she did walk through the 10 feet of
minimum deck space that was requested by P&Z but staff did not have the
purview. Erickson asked about the Truscott Housing issue. Ohlson replied that
she said that she said that she completely missed that as a condition. Blaich and
Erickson stated that was a warrant from the applicant.
MOTION: Erickson moved to extend the meeting another 15 minutes.
Roger second. APPROVED 5-1.
Erickson stated that the Truscott Housing issue and the wording of the official
agreement between the City and County concerning traffic and parking (the intent
of the commission was not relayed to council) were left out of the resolution.
Tygre agreed with Erickson on the way that P&Z recommendations were not being
relayed to City Council not with the meaning and context that the commission
stated. Ohlson replied that all of the conditions in the resolution were given to
Council; she said that the P&Z recommendations were bulleted in the memo to
Council. Buettow stated that the timing of this project was set-up to be hamstrung.
Erickson said he voted for that continuance because the county did not have the
information to make a very important decision from a staffreport that varied from
what city P&Z thought would be approved in the first place. Hoefer stated that he
agreed with Ron on the continuation for the information that needed to be relayed
to the county. Buettow stated that staffhad the people to answer those questions in
the audience tonight. Erickson said that Peter Thomas stated that he had more
unanswered questions. Hoefer suggested highlighting the P&Z recommendations
to City Council. Erickson stated that P&Z represented the community and
therefore the P&Z recommendations should be paramount. Erickson said that staff
7
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
could make their own recommendation separate from the P&Z recommendation.
Tygre agreed.
Hoefer stated that in Glenwood Springs the City Council provided the P&Z
findings in the very beginning of the Council Public Hearing; he said that could be
brought up to the Aspen City Council. Erickson stated that he felt that the P&Z
recommendation was a recommendation. Blaich stated that it was very important
that City Council know why the Growth Management Commission continued the
meeting. Erickson stated that this was a tight time table and this was being pushed
through. Erickson asked who made the decision to combine the conceptual and
final PUD with nothing finalized; he said that City P&Z was acting on good faith.
Hoefer stated that the concerns were very legitimate and they needed more
discussion and that there was no one at fault.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Roger Haneman
second. APPROVED 5-0.
//~ckie Lothian~ Deputy City Clerk