HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000321ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ MARCH 21, 2000
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................... 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................ 2
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS ..................... 2
TRUSCOTT CONCEPTUAL PUD ......................................................................... 3
MOORE PUD MINOR AMENDMENT .................................................................. 7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000
Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:30 p.m. held in the Sister Cities
Meeting room with Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Roger Hunt,
Jasmine Tygre and Charles Vresilovic present. Tim Mooney arrived at 4:45. City
staff in attendance: John Worcester and David Hoefer, City Attorney; Amy Guthrie,
Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Lee Novak
and Mary Roberts, Housing; Jeff Woods, Parks; Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Tim
Anderson, Recreation; Steve Aitken, Golf; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jackie Lothian introduced the new commissioner Charles Vresilovic. David
Hoefer noted that for the record there were two continued hearings that the new
member would not vote on but comments were welcome. Joyce Ohlson explained
the voting procedure.
Jasmine Tygre suggested that Roger Hunt be utilized as a consultant to P&Z; Ron
Erickson agreed. Roger Hunt stated that if his input was ever needed, the
commissioners only had to ask him and he would be glad to help out.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend to City Council that
Roger Itunt be utilized as a consultant. APPROVED 7-0.
Blaich asked if anything was resolved on Mittel Europa. Joyce Ohlson replied that
Sarah Oates was working on it.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Steven Buettow stated that he would step down on the Moore PUD.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS
Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. John Worcester stated that this
was the latest draft with the changes indicated from the last work session and
requested comments from the commissioners.
Roger Hunt asked if the public was involved early in the process. Jasmine Tygre
stated that the public involvement early on was an important factor that should be
reflected in the resolution. The commissioners and attorney worked on word-
smithing the resolution. John Worcester stated that the word review included
recommendations and anything short of approval and would be added to the
language in the resolution. Erickson added the task team's recommendations. The
commission said that a P&Z member would be on the task team. Worcester said
that he recalled that there wasn't specific representation from each board on every
project; it may be a project that P&Z may not have an interest in. Ohlson said that
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000
the original concept was that city council would convene a group that was
representative of the boards and commissions; it was assumed that the plauning
and zoning commission would have representation. The community development
director would recommend the boards involved in the review process.
No public comments.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend that City Council adopt
the amendments to the land use code as set forth in the amended P&Z
Resolution//12, series 2000. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote:
Haneman, no; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yeS; Tygre, no;
Buettow, yes; B!alch, yes. APPROVED 5-2.
Tygre said that the concept would include that all the boards were included early
on in the process to obtain a better public project. Tygre said that there was a
check and balance and she felt that a trade-off for the ability °fP&Z t° be the
opposition for that check and balance. Haneman stated that the 2-step process was
combined into a faster process; he thought that the conceptual and final process
was ideal but objected to the one-stepprocess. Erickson said that everyone had the
opportunity from either the standpoint as a board member or a private citizen to
comment on the process;the old process did not work well. Mooney felt that this
would at least keep the special interest groups from pushing through projects and
projects would produce better end products. Hunt agreed that this was Worth a try.
Buettow supported what Tim said. Buettow noted that this document was basically
flawed. Erickson said that it was a good first attempt and he wanted to see how it
worked. Blaich also brought up the trust issue, which the commission felt was a
concern.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(03/07/00):
TRUSCOTT cONCEPTUAL PUD
Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing on Truscott. Bendon noted that
the issues on the table tonight were primarily recreation and some housing
components of the plan. Bendon stated that the public hearing wOuld be continued
to April 4th for the remaining issues and to pass the resolution onto council.
Bendon said that the parking garage discussion was included for council to provide
for the garage and identified that the primary issue was financial on the garage.
Bendon distributed new recreational component plans for tonight's presentation.
Laura Kirk, landscape planner, distributed an agenda for the presentation with
alternatives listed. Kirk stated that the plans evolved with 3 major issues. The
elements were the same for tennis, golf and housing. Kirk stated there were
parking alternatives in the plan and the parking garage. Kirk said that the golf
facility originally was a 2-story building with cart storage and locker rooms
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21~ 2000
underneath; the budget was not able to accommodate that layout so they looked at
other layouts for the golf building.
Tim Anderson, Recreation Director, distributed the May bond election public Parks
and Recreation Improvements Plan, which was complied from different user
groups needs. Anderson stated that the voters approved it by 82% with various
other recreational amenities. Anderson said that the key components were
improved golf and Nordic pro shop, tennis center, improved trail and pedestrian
connections and new and improved restaurant operation for the golf course.
Anderson said that the cart parking underneath was not in the budget and they were
looking at moving the cart barn into another area that still met the needs of the golf
course. Anderson utilized maps to show the locations. He said that the parking
· · · th r
was convement and easily accessible. The restaurant was located at the 18 ee
with the pro shop. He said that the views of Pyramid Peak from the restaurant and
decks were key experience. Anderson explained the delivery areas on the opposite
sides of tennis and golf. He said that they wanted clay tennis courts and one
stadium court for tournaments; he said that the space needed work for restrooms
and storage. Anderson stated that the old ball field was moved to the Iselin site and
the tennis courts will actually reduce traffic in this area and lessen the impacts.
Anderson stated that Junior Golf was interested in utilizing the old pro shop, which
would benefit Junior Golf. Anderson stated that the pedestrian trails, underpasses
and traffic flows functioned in a much safer way. Anderson stated that the
intersection would be addressed immediately.
Roger Hunt asked if this was just a surface-parking plan; what future underground
parking was planned for storage type parking and would it be nixed forever by this
plan. Kirk answered that it was a surface only plan with room left for
underground. Novak said that the under-tennis parking was an additional lot. Hunt
asked if it made sense to plan for the underground parking now.
Anderson said that the issues were the cart barn placed as close to or attached to
the main building with restroom facilities for tennis. Tygre stated that the year
round restaurant operation was of concern to the commission because of the
possibility of this becoming a destination restaurant with huge traffic impacts.
Anderson said that financially it was difficult for the winter Nordic ski to have a 3-
meal restaurant all winter. Tygre stated objection to drawing people to a
destination restaurant. Mooney said that this was a grill; there were 90 restaurants
in town and the operator should be aware that the restaurant was to serve the golf
course and was not a conference center for weddings and private parties. Mooney
cited the Sundeck as an expandable moving target. Anderson asked about the
Nordic center having a moonlight ski dinner. Mooney responded that would be a
4
ASPEN PLANNING & zONING COMMISSION MARCH 2i~ 2~00
grill type dinner for the community; he stated that the Nordic Center was as
important as the Golf use. Bendon stated that this was a golf course use area with
support for the golf course. Bendon said that the commission Wanted to support
things that were secondary to golf. Novak stated that the intent of the restaurant
was to service the golf users and maybe some Nordic; he said that he heard what
the commission said about no special events, fine dining and not being a
destination restaurant. Novak stated that he felt that he had the direction from the
commission on the restaurant issues.
Kirk stated that the housing portion included the balance and integration of the
density with an addition of 90 new units in Phase I and II; open space for a liVable
environment; adequate on-site parking (1 space per unit with parking closer to the
units); improving the intersection for a safer Vehicular and PedeStrian use;
reduction of conflicts between housing and recreational components of the project
and finallY t° aChieve all of the above with limited finanCial ~esources: Kirk
explained the tuck-under and carport parking, which addressed some of the
previous parking concerns. Buettow asked about drive-under parking with green
space on top at that far end. Kirk replied that it was extremely expensive. N°vak
responded that the underground mechanically vented garage closer to the
residences was more expensive and than other alternatives, which were fiscally
more responsible. Mooney expressed that the density shoUld be placed on this
project and that the streetscape parking added to the urban feel.
Ed Fornum, public said that he was on the Board of Directors of the
Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council; he stated appreciation for the restaurant facility
because it would encourage Nordic Skiing. Fornum said that it was difficult for a
restaurant to make it anYhoW in this town and it was arisk t° have a restaurant in
this spot to begin with; it must be opened minded to give the restaurateur every
advantage.
Mike Convisor, publiC, stated that he watched this facility evolve to the response of
the community. Convisor stated that he was on the advisory committee for the
golf course and he had deVeloPed a number of g°if courses; not in the valley, but
he was in the business and knew what it took to make a viable golf course.
Convisor stated that this facility provided the local golfer the best deal in mountain
golf and provided the toUrist a valuable first class experience. Convisor Said that
this was an opportunity to supply a profitable Viable golf facility and restaurant as
an important first class asset to the community and experience for the tourist. He
said that the staffhas done a terrific job in blending the needs for houSing; parking
and all the other things and not affect that golf feeling.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000
Ernie Fyrwald, public, stated that there has been a restaurant at the golf course
since the beginning of the golf course. Fyrwald stated that this would not become
a 5 star restaurant packed with cars 7 nights a week; he said it was too far out of
town and not conducive to that. Frywald asked that the commission to look at the
restaurant as a viable opportunity for the golfers, tennis players, skiers and people
that live in employee units to utilize this restaurant. Frywald said that there could
only be 275 to 300 people per day on the golf course. Frywald stressed that he
wanted this golf course to continue and be the best that it can.
Kirk said that the decision points for housing were the density from 90 to 100 units
in Phase I and II (alternative 2). Novak summed up the commissioners concerns:
these were rental units that were being driven by parking; how massive were these
buildings; the density was important (100 units); the buildings were not to look like
the MAA; one parking space as near the unit as possible; the intersection
completed prior to any building; less open space; no corrununity center.
Carolyn Sakarisson, public, stated that she was a Truscott resident and golfer.
Sakarisson stated that rental housing needed parking and asked why his or her
quality of life should be any different than anyone else's. She said that she was on
the waiting list for 3½ years before she got her apartment at Truscott.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.
Roger Hunt seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
Tygre stated that some free market units in town only provided one space for a
unit; the older building that she lived in contained units with 3-5 bedrooms with
only one parking space per unit. Tygre said that one space for a two-bedroom unit
could work with free public transportation and an improved intersection.
Mooney reiterated that a timeline was needed for the intersection being installed
prior to the demolition; Bendon stated that was under also a major concern for the
planning staff. Bendon said that to the extent possible the underground parking
structures would be explored. Novak stated that on the 4th the issues probably
would not include the sign off from CDOT on a timeline. Blaich asked why the
process was changed for council to review first and then P&Z review tonight; he
asked why the council review process (last night) did not include P&Z comments.
Blaich said that the normal process was for P&Z to be making recommendations to
council. Novak explained that council wears 2 hats; Bendon stated that was why
this was in the COWOP process. Novak said that last night's council meeting was
to update the financial end of the project on the unit livability and open space.
Novak stated that the process was to have staff sit with the owner and forward to
council to get their direction and framework. Ed Sadler stated that the reason it
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ MARCH 21, 2000
went to council last night was to finalize some details prior to the P&Z review to
be able to review the same issues.
Jasmine Tygre excused herself at 7:15pm.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting another 15
minutes. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on
Truscott Conceptual PUD to April 4, 2000. Tim Mooney seconded.
APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MOORE PUD MINOR AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on the Moore PUD minor amendment.
David Hoefer stated that the notice was in order and the commission had
jurisdiction to proceed. Steven Buettow recused himself.
Joyce Ohlson said that the city annexed the Moore Family PUD ~n conjunction
with all the development parameters that were adopted as part of the approved plan
by Pitkin County. Ohlson said that the applicant was Zoom Flume represented by
Glenn Horn, Matt Stokes and Dewayne. Ohlson said that minor PUD amendments
can be reviewed by the Community Development Director; staff felt that these
amendments were significant enough to come before the P&Z for final authority
on these amendments. There were 3 amendments: (1) change the setbacks for 2
affordable housing unit parcels from 20 feet to 12 feet on the front and back sides;
David Hoefer noted that there was a road on either side. (2) Increase the height of
the ski lift tower from 40 feet to 50 feet; there was a need for 46-feet. (3) There
was a revision to the grading and drainage plan for the lots.
Ohlson said that the setback areas for Lots 8E and 9E were restricted by roads on
both sides. This was a component of the affordable housing nodes in this project;
the property was zoned R-15. Glenn Horn stated that this was a PUD with the
units on Lots 8E and 9E were bordered by Cinnamon Court and Moore Drive.
Horn stated that on Lot 8E there was a 10-foot setback variance needed. Horn
stated that the conditions were acceptable. Hunt asked if they considered moving
the common boundary on Lots 8E and 9E to the south, making the lot longer.
Dewayne replied that the design of the homes was front to back. Hunt said that the
design of the houses determined the setbacks on these lots. Ron Erickson asked
why the houses couldn't be designed to fit into the lots and within the setbacks.
Horn answered that the detailed final design, which were done in the county
originally, had approved floor plans; the plats were not carefully examined and
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2000
these floor plans did not fit the lots. Erickson said that this concerned him because
this was a PUD and the designs should fit the lots.
No public con~aents.
Erickson questioned the height variance needed for the ski lifts because experts
designed them and they were off by 20%. Erickson asked where the towers were
located. Horn responded that 5 out of the 7 towers were going to be higher and
these towers were much safer without the tie.downs. Blaich noted that the lots
sizes could not be read. Horn stated that a lot of time was spent on the house floors
plans.
MOTION:Tim Mooney moved to approve the Moore Family PUD final
plat amendments outlined in P&Z Resolution#16, 2000 with the
amended engineering on the drainage plan condition and that the
criteria have been met. Roger Hunt seconded. Roll call vote: Hunt, yes;
Haneman, no; Erickson, no; Mooney, yes; Vresilovic, yes; Blaich, yes.
APPROVED 4-2.
Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
~an, Deputy City Clerk