Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.agmc.20010227 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ISELIN PARK EXEMPTION FROM GMQS .......... ~ .............................................................................................. I 8 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Bob Blaich, chairman, opened the special meeting at 4:45 p.m. in Council Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Peter Martin, Peter Thomas, Paul Rudnick, John Howard, Michael Augello, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre, Steve Whipple and Bob Blaich. Roger Haneman and Sheri Sanzone were excused. Staff in attendance were: Steve Barwick, City Manager; John Worcester, David Hoefer, City Attorneys; Joyce Ohlson, Cindy Houben, Community Development; Ed Sadler, Stephen Bossart, Asset Management; Bud Eyler, Pitkin County; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2001 Aspen P&Z meeting. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/20/0 !): ISELIN PARK EXEMPTION FROM GMQS Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Ohlson presented.the new draft Resolution with a clarification of the housing mitigation requirement based upon what the applicant gave the Housing Authority for employee generation (not based upon square footage). Peter Martin stated that ¶2 contrasted ¶6 in reference to building permit and certificate of occupancy. Ohlson responded that the applicants have just worked out a set of conditions between the BOCC and City Council in testimony for the public record from last night's City Council meeting. Ohlson said that #6 could probably be removed; the set of conditions would become #8 and on from there making the city responsible for all parking enforcement issues. Paul Rudnick stated that the conditions could be accepted or rejected by the City Council. Ed Sadler replied that these conditions were accepted by City Council last night. Cindy Houben responded that there was a letter fi'om the Board of County Commissioners with parking concerns and the road issues and the BOCC and Council agreed upon the modifications to what the county submitted. Erickson stated that the applicant agreed to conditions, which would mean that the applicant would be held to as a warrant to the revisions of the resolution. Rudnick said that there was a conflict of interest here with the city as the applicant and the city's council was amending, adopting and possibly exempting the rules and the county 1 . ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 was a by-stander. Rudnick said that he was concerned that Growth Management exempts the project and then the conditions proposed would be done away with by City Council. Ohlson replied that that was why she said that the applicant placed in testimony that this was there intent to adopt. Sadler stated that he made representations from Council. Rudnick stated that the county did not have involvement in the process for the economic issues between the city and the county of the economic responsibility of the Maroon Creek Road maintenance. Rudnick said that was looking for a legally binding agreement to assure that the city agreed to this allocation of responsibility. John Worcester, city attorney, responded that the city was the applicant and as the applicant made the representation and goes into the Resolution as a condition but the law was that city council could take it out of their approval. Martin stated that they wouldn't be doing their job unless they questioned the viability of parking, the questions regarding the road and the employee housing mitigation. He said that pursuant to what happened with Growth Management last week the governing bodies got together and have reached an agreement that was just short of what he would like to see, but if the governing bodies were comfortable with it he would differ to them. Martin noted that everyone was trying to make the project work and accepted that Council and the BOCC had to work together. Rudnick asked if there was a way that the city could give the county a letter agreeing to the conditions. Worcester stated that there was a binding agreement made last night at the meeting that was accepted by all the City Council members and all The Board of County Commissioners; city staff represented the conditions again tonight. Worcester stated there were many intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) and it was agreed on last night as a binding oral agreement. Blaich suggested that Paul add some words that could be placed into the approval. Efickson noted there were other steps in the agreement that could be held by the county for the review of the building permit process. Houben stated that there were permits from the county on the road fight-of-way that were part of the approval. Steven Buettow stated that the Growth Management could place a condition that would state that if any conditions were changed or not adhered to th~n the Growth Management Resolution was null and void. Rudnick said that it was his understanding then that City Council could eliminate that condition. Worcester stated that the Growth Management Commission recommended to City Council but last night City Council gave their word to the County Commissioners present at that meeting, that they would abide by those conditions; the City Council's word to 2 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 the County Commissioners could not be ignored. Blaich noted changes could be made, as you know with the BOCC. Erickson stated that the conditions should satisfy the commission concerns and be incorporated into the resolution. Worcester said that it was redundant to place the condition in the resolution. Martin said it may be redundant but if it was legal then let's put it into the agreement. Steve Whipple asked if there were mitigation of the impacts with landscaping. Erickson answered that the goal for the landscape plan satisfied him and they were planning the facility around the trees; he said that they were being environmentally sensitive. Erickson said that he was comfortable with the way the project was landscaped. Whipple stated that from the story boards there were very large mature evergreens around the structure. Sadler responded that the representation was for good-sized trees but the most reasonable sized trees would be between 4 and 5 inches. Whipple stated that he was trying to get as many trees as possible and from looking at the roundabout, he said that he was not comfortable with the job that the city forester has done there. Worcester replied that the there was a lot of work not yet done in roundabout and was not a final product. Sadler noted that utilities still had to be finished and bridges. Whipple asked again if there was a landscape mitigation plan with water for the trees. Sadler stated there was a raw waterline using irrigation water in the landscape plan. John Howard stated there were very specific criteria to judge this as an essential public facility; he said that he thought everyone had a good comfort level with that portion. Howard asked for more reassurance in the application on the parking and did not want the process to end here by passing this resolution tonight. Howard stated that he wanted the process to be worked on more. Erickson stated that there were a lot of problems but this was a one-step process and there was a heavy burden placed on the applicant that would have been resolved if there had been a conceptual and final review done separately. Erickson stated that what was promised was that it met the threshold. Eric Cohen asked if the parking were reduced by 20% would that be enough mitigation. Cohen said that would be the Tiehack parking. Erickson said that the public parking and the schools and the 120 spaces would never be over saturated if properly scheduling was done. Erickson said that the Tiehack parking wasn't going to be the parking lot for this facility. Cohen asked if formal contact had been made with Maroon Creek Development. Sadler replied that there had not been any dialog with Maroon Creek Development. Houben stated for clarification that the MCDC project was approved in the county and at that time there was conceptual approval for a bridge with money donated to it. Houben said that MCDC has not 3 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 reviewed the plan or the potential change to the conditions of approval. Sadler stated that they hoped to know what the demand for parking would be at that time. Cohen asked if there were other parking alternatives. Steve Bossart replied that if multiple events were scheduled, it would be the responsibility of the last group to provide off-site parking and notice would be given. Steven Buettow stated that the parking was lacking. Peter Thomas noted that enforcement doesn't resolve the lack of parking. Sadler responded that enforcement did prove itself in Aspen as a parking alternative. Steve Whipple said that this would be a better arrangement but asked if there was any merit to review the operational plan at a later date. Sadler replied that the parking plan provided many different options; he said that whatever it took to solve the parking problems would be done. Claude Morelli, transportation planner, stated that there was a recommendation of a biannual review in the document; Council would decide whatever it took. Morelli said that there would be an additional 35 spaces not including Tiehack for parking. Morelli said that there were only 2 incidences where there would be a significant number of parking spaces, which might occur with the 2 theaters and a large ice events. Morelli said that there was a good transportation reCord in Aspen for bus rider ship. Tim Ware, parking & transportation, stated that there was a parking enforcement plan being drafted for this project with an IGA with Five Trees and the school. Tygre said that the conditions could include a biannual review for the parking and stated that she shared the county's concern for parking review and revision. Paul Rudnick 'said that the county would provide an engineering study confirming the integrity of the road; he asked what if that was not the conclusion from the study and not what the city was looking for. Ohlson responded that was essential that the study would be prepared and based upon the results of that study; the city and county would further negotiate the maintenance of the road. Rudnick asked about damage done to the road from this project. Sadler replied that was addressed in the agreements. Cindy Houben responded that there were construction documents for annexation or maintenance of the road. Bud Eyler stated that the study would take 6 weeks. Sadler noted that would put the project back with costly time and monetary delays. Blaich noted that these were agreements between the two government bodies and the Growth Management had to get past that point. Brooke Peterson, public, stated that he was the attorney for the Maroon Creek Master Association, Maroon Creek Townhome Owners Association and the Maroon Creek Greens Association. Peterson said that MCDC no longer owns the parking lot, the Maroon Creek Club Master Association owns the parking lot. 4 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Peterson stated that to the best of his knowledge he has not been contacted for use of this parking lot or had any of the officers of the Association. Peterson said that the approval for the Tiehack parking lot was for day use only and use for access to public lands. Peterson said that the nighttime use of this parking lot would not be supported. Kendall Adams, public, stated that he was the principal of the high school. Adams noted that this was a community master plan with the high school and the ball fields; it was a coordinated effort between city recreation and the high school. Adams said that they have coordinated efforts on the rights for the ball fields and not to impact one another as well as the parking plan implementation. David Bruton, public, stated that he was opposed to the basic concept on account of the project financing and parking. Bruton noted that he said it all before to various people and in meetings and but that he wanted to challenge this project in an appropriate way. Scott Writer, public, stated that he was involved in the private fund raising for the ice arena; he stated that they have worked on the project for 18 months and understands that this project is not perfect. Writer stated that there were space and financial limitations but believed that this would serve the community well. Writer said that the parking issue was a challenge but would work with special scheduling. Writer stated strong support for this project. Toni Kronberg, public, asked if the applicants had a copy of the campus master plan with all the parking; she requested that Ed Sadler pull it out. Kronberg stated that she wanted to make this project happen; she said that 4 or 5 years ago she personally sponsored a bonfire at the schools to encourage the city to develop a parking and transportation plan at that time. Kronberg said that she wasn't sure if the parking was there. Kronberg said that the IGA language was not in the current P&Z resolution, the language was an agreement, which was different than an IGA. Kronberg stated concern for the approvals being freely granted because of budget concerns; she noted that private projects would not be granted approvals freely. Kronberg noted other private projects that had stringent parking mitigation. Kronberg said that last year the city did excavation work without a permit between Rotary Park and where the ice rink would be located; she said that was how bound and determined this was what would happen. Kronberg said that the money was not there for that bridge. Kronberg stated that she put herself on the Aspen Area Community Plan Committee for two years because she wanted the parking and transportation to be ironed out before they got to this point. Kronberg said that there was supposed to be a transfer center at the roundabout with a "kiss and ride" 5 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2001 so that parents could drop their kids off and could either walk across the bridge or take a shuttle bus up. Kronberg said that the "kiss and ride" was only accessible for buses; she stated concern for the safety hazard of walking across the road at the yield sign. Krnberg stated that there was a recommendation for a dedicated bus, but the question was who would pay for that bus. Kronberg said from last night's council meeting that Hines and the Five Tree Subdivision would pay; she said that it was the city's parking problem and they should pay for it. Kronberg stated that the pedestrian bridge was of concern. Blaich stated that numerous issues were covered in previous meetings and the GMC had criteria.to follow tonight; he asked Toni Kronberg for new information to enlighten the commission tonight. Kronberg said that the numbers generated in the parking lots for hockey, youth center and pool have to exceed the number of cars. Kronberg said that in order for the pool to work it must accommodated 100 people an hour and then there were the softball fields, hockey and pool. Kronberg said that there were maybe short 200 parking spaces and if the bus barn were covered maybe parking could be located there and make the whole thing work. Kronberg said that P&Z should approve the project with very specific conditions; she said with the IGA especially and to be in place before the issuance of the building permit. Kronberg asked how the construction would affect the school year and the summer, with regards to public safetyas the main concern. LJ Ersparmer, public, stated he supported the project and asked the transportation expert from Boulder to be heard with alternatives for the transportation issues. Ersparmer stated that the city promised to have meetings with the concerned groups. Tony Hershey, public, stated that he said at the meeting last night if this committee failed to reach a decision tonight, he would assume that meant a no. He said that he had the utmost respect for this board. MOTION #1: Ron Erickson moved to approve GMC Resolution #01, 2001 recommending City Council exempt the IseHn Park PUD from the Growth Management Competition and Scoring Procedures as an Essential Public Facility with the following conditions amended and added: #6. removed and replaced with a biannual parking review, #9 added with all of the conditions of approval from Pitkin County for the road and Parking with joint agreements between City Council and Pitkin County, #10. added Should any one or more of the conditions be amended or otherwise altered by City Council the recommendation of the commission shah be deemed withdrawn and be of no further effect unless the BOCC and the Aspen City Council shah otherwise mutually 6 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27~ 2001 agree and condition//8 strive be replaced with will. Jasmine Tygre seconded. Roll call vote: Thomas, no; Cohen, yes; Buettow, yes; Whipple, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Martin, no; Rudnick, yes; Howard, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 8-2. Discussion of the motion #1: Peter Thomas asked about the essential elements to parking plan at Tiehack not being settled with Brooke Peterson. Ed Sadler replied that the city inherited the agreement when the property annexed; he said that it was for day use, access to public land. Sadler said that the soccer fields and softball fields were not lit, so there was no intension for night use at this time. Peter Martin stated that the GMC was here with limited ability to grant an exemption and not weigh the merits or limitations of the project. Martin said that the words contained were not binding resolutions of the problems and suggested tabling until there were resolutions to the problems. Paul Rudnick offered an amendment to Motion #1 stated as condition #10. Peter Thomas requested that in condition #8. strive to implement be changed to shall. Joyce Ohlson responded that the report included operational strategies for the police and transportation may be put into place because the entire package had to be determined. Blaich asked if the word will could be substituted for strive. MOTION//2. Peter Martin moved to table the meeting until resolutions of the problems could be solved. Peter Thomas seconded. Peter Martin stated it was a non-debatable motion but was persuaded by Mr. Barwick's information provided below to withdraw his motion. Peter Thomas seconded the withdrawal. Steve Barwick, city manager, stated the financial realities of this project and the costs of delays; 'he apologized for the commission not receiving the information in a timely manner. Barwick said that some of the issues were not signed agreements with the city and county on the road and parking, but significant delay to this project now would kill the project because there would be problems with financing. Barwick stated that if this was tabled again it will be viewed as a no vote to city council. Kronberg asked how a delay would kill the project. Barwick responded that continued delay would continue to raise construction costs and come in behind other major construction projects scheduled in the valley, which would leave no project. Barwick stated that there was no contingency left in this project. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Jackie Lothian,. Deputy City Clerk 7 CONTINUED MEETING DATE: 02/27/01 NAME OF PROJECT: ISELIN PARCK CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA & CONDITIONAL USE CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Joyce Ohlson, Cindy Houben, Bud Eyler, Steve Barwick WITNESSES: (1) Ed Sadler (7) Kendall Adams (2) David Hoefer (8) David Bruton (3) John Worcester (9) Scott Writer (4) Claude Morelli (10) Toni Kronberg (5) Tim Ware (11) LJ Ersparmer (6) Brooke Peterson (12) Tony Hershey EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Various maps, drawings MOTION #1: Ron Erickson moved to approve GMC Resolution #01, 2001 recommending City Council exempt the Iselin Park PUD from the Growth Management Competition and Scoring Procedures as an Essential Public Facility with the following conditions amended and added: #6. removed and replaced with a biannual parking review, #9 added with all of the conditions of approval Pitkin County for the road and Parking with joint agreements between City Council and Pitkin County and condition #10. Should any one or more of the conditions be amended or otherwise altered by City Council the recommendation of the commission shall be deemed withdrawn and be of no further effect unless the BOCC and the Aspen City Council shall otherwise mutually agree and condition #8 strive be replaced with will. Jasmine Tygre seconded. Roll call vote: Thomas, no; Cohen, yes; Buettow, yes; Whipple, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Martin, no; Rudnick, yes; Howard, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 8-2. VOTE: YES 8 NO 2 ROBERT BLAICH YES x NO JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES x NO RON ERICKSON YES x NO ERIC COHEN YES NO PETER MARTIN YES NO x STEVE WHIPPLE YES x NO PAUL RUDNICK YES x NO PETER THOMAS YES NO x JOHN HOWRD, alt YES x NO GMCVOTE