Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040203ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03~ 2004 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS .............................................................. 2 MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT ............................................................. 2 OBERMEYER PUD AMENDMENT ......................................................................................... 2 LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD ........................................................ 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03~ 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning in Sister Cities Meeting Room. commissioners present were Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre. John Rowland, RUth Kruger and jack Johnson were excused. Staff in attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jack Johnson were conflicted on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. PUBLIC HEARING: MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Maroon Creek Club PUD/SPA Amendment. David Hoefer stated the proof of notice had been provided. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing on the Maroon Creek ClUb PUD/SPA Amendment to February 17, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: OBERMEYER PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine 'Tygre opened the Obermeyer public hearing for the Obermeyer PUD Amendment. David Hoefer stated the proof of notice was provided. MOTION: Roger Haneman move to continue the Obermeyer hearing to February 4th at noon in City Council Chambers; seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/03, 01/06/04, 01/20/04): LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain conceptual PUD. Tygre noted that there was more correspondence: Maureen O'Conner-Hudson, James E. Michel and Nina Zale with an attachment from Richard Spaulding and Carl Levy expressing opposition to the project; Scott Woodford read the names: Michael Miesen and Doug Allen objecting to the project. Tygre noted the memo from Scott regarding the traffic study. Woodford said the overview of issues for tonight's discussions were things to improve the safety of the road, affordable housing plan, timeshare program, off-site improvements and 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03~ 2004 any remaining items that needed further discussion. The neXt scheduled meeting was March 2na for this review with a resolution prepared at that time. Woodford stated the dates of the Traffic Study were done in 1998 and June 30 and July 1, 2003. The Traffic Generation at Castle Creek Bridge, Traffic at the Top of Mill Street and Delivery LOcation and Restrictions, Turnaround at the top of South Aspen Street, Ski Company plan for Lift lA and Recommendations for Improving Safety were included in the memo. The applicant offered to help the city with sOme maintenance of the road. Sunny Vann spoke about the traffic issues; the carrying capacity of the street at the peak times operated at about 40% of the South Aspen Street capacity. The consultant took the winter factor into effect but it doesn't significantly affect the capacity but the snow conditions with the steepness of the. grade caused operational constraints, which have to be addressed. Vann stated the design of the project was done intentionally to reduce the extent of traffic going up the hill; all the service comes in off of Juan Street; the hotel traffic was primarily at midpoint designed to accommodate some of the traffic and queuing occurs without stacking on a steep street. The fractional were entering at the lower end of the site; once in the complex from within the building and that was the reason for the bridge. The improved base lift access was a consideration by the commission. Vann said that if the commission Supported the appropriateness of a hotel then conditions that require the applicant to work with the city to mitigate the impacts ShOuld be included in the resolution. Woodford stated that there were two different affordable housing from the code (1) the residential multi family replacement program, associated with the demOlition of the Mine Dump Apartments and (2) employee generation.; they were required to mitigate 60% of the employee that were generated. Woodford explained the multi family replacement program included any unit that ever housed a working . resident when demolished was required to be replaced to 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the square footage. In this case there were a total of 22 bedrooms and 7700 square feet at the Mine Dump Apartments so they were required to replace 12 bedrooms and 3800 square feet; the applicant proposed 13 bedrooms and 4450 square feet of net livable area, so they exceeded the requirement. There were 12 studios and 1 2-bedroom apartment located on site under the terrace area next to the pool; all above grade category 2 units. Woodford said there was not an operator for the hotel so the number of employees was not known at this time but an estimate for a 5 star hotel of this size would generate between 150 to 200 employees; to proved for 60% of that fi.gure would be between 60 and 90 employees. The Aspen/Pitkin Housing board approved the affordable proposal and ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03, 2004 supported on site rental units as opposed to for sale units to provide housing for the employees on site. Vann stated that they would comply with the housing requirements at the time the application was approved. Vann said that the number of units mitigated for in the city limit or urban growth boundary. Public Comments: (1) Mitlon Zale, public, Lift One, said that it was difficult to belieVe that building 350,000 square feet would not create a huge traffic jam and create many problems on this street. Mr. Zale said the affordable housing also created problems. Mr. Zale submitted more letters for the record. David Hoefer noted that there were probably 30 letters submitted into the public record. Woodford noted the letters were from Ellen Richard, Joel Bugalter and David and Laura Mulkie (all Lift One owners rejecting the project). (2) Dr. David Mulkie, public, owner of Lift One unit since 1976, said the traffic and parking were issues. Dr. Mulkie stated concern for the livability at the comer ' of Durant and Aspen Streets with the increased traffic. (3) Nina Zale, public, Lift One owner, hoped that the commission read all the letters so that they were aware of all of their objections. (4) Ed Glickman, public, Lift One owner, stated concern for the traffic issues and heavy congeStions with building so many hundreds of thousands of square feet of property. Mr. Glickman objected to the prior P&Z approval for the condominiums with many variances for the developers, now the variances were beyond what should be approved. Mr. Glickman commended Scott in the initial review and coverage of the items. (5) Laura Mulkie, pUblic, respected the feelings of the other owners but it would seem that a compromise would be to improve the street} which would increase their property values. Ms. Mulkie noted there were many other developments done and how different was this development than other ones. Laura Mulkie stated that her comments were based on the prior project and not this project that was currently on the table for approval on this site. Tygre said there have been traffic concerns on Durant for about 10 years; the more traffic lights on Main Street the more traffic moved to Durant Street. The intersections that have been in question with P&Z prior to this project were going to be used more and there would be improvements to the lifts. Tygre said that more projects come through without housing on site or within walking distance for that project's housing mitigation then one of the problems becomes the increased travel on highway 82 every time a project's employee housing isn't within walking distance of that project. Since Burlingame was approved with over 300 units it was difficult for P&Z not to approve off site housing mitigation. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03~ 2004 Woodford stated the project proposed 29 fractional share units (1/8 shares), which creates a total of 232 Timeshare Estates; none of the rooms were proposed to be lock-offs. The plan guarantees owners 2 weeks in the winter (November 1 st to April 30th and 2 weeks in the summer (May 1st to October 31st) from that a maximum of 112 days out of the 182 days of the season would be reserved for owners and remaining time was considered float time available for the owners or general public similar to the hotel under the same main entry and front desk. The owners must reserve float time 30 days in advance; if they do not then the units go into the general rental pool. Woodford said the timeshare requirements do not allow cars to be kept on site while the owners are gone; they provide the fitness center, spa, concierge and restaurant/bar. Vann noted the realities of building a pure hotel these days were pretty tough trying to amortize the construction loan costs from nightly rentals was an issue facing the hotel industry throughout the country. Vann said this project was designed to comply with all of the requirements of the timeshare ordinance if not all the optional requirements as well; it was an integral part of the hotel; it will provide additional rooms for rental when not occupied by the owners as additional hotbeds. Skadron asked if the applicant was concerned with all of the new fractionals in town at the same time coming on line. Vann replied the variety of fractionals improved in town were very different; some were presales were included. Vann said that there was no loss in sales tax because this site was not a hotel therefore there was no tax mitigation. Tygre asked staff to address a question from the audience about the difference between the prior condominium application and the current application. Allgaier responded that there were 2 different proposals for this property (1) mixture of 14 free-market units as well as 17 affordable housing units, which was an approved project on this property. The applicant's have the right to "sit on the vested site specific approval" and the applicant has the right to make another application with a new set of plans for approval. Woodford utilized the site plan for proposed details off-site, which was to widen Juan Street to be consistent with the 27-foot width and dedicate some additional right-of-way to accommodate the width for snow storage. They also proposed improvements to South Aspen Street to accommodate 2 travel lanes and parking was still an issue with the city engineer recommending parallel parking; the applicant would upgrade the road to comply with city standards including curb and gutter along Juan Street and the lower part of South Aspen where their property ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 03~ 2004 fronts the street. The applicant proposed the addition of sidewalks along the property frontage but there might be a gap between the property and the intersection. Woodford said there was also a planting with street trees on a strip between the sidewalk and curb and street lighting, which would meet the lighting code. Woodford spoke about Dean Avenue with streetscape improvements from other new projects and maybe the connection should be continued but without preventing vehicular access on Dean Street but with landscaped pedestrian improvements. Vann said there was a portion of Dean Avenue in front of the Lift One Condominiums that was conveyed to them in the 60' s. Woodford said that he would draw up the resolution for the March 2nd meeting. Johns stated that the timeshare, affordable housing and the off-site improvements components met the code then that was fair to him; the traffic would probably need a better way to manage the street and maintain it. Tygre said how do we as a planning commission deal with the triggering of many other projects and must take many of the Lift 1A improvement and the other lodges into their thoughts on the impacts as a whole. Public Comments on Off-site Improvements and Timeshare: (1) Nina Zale, public, asked what the recommendations would be based on. Allgaier replied that this applicant did not include the Lift 1A developments. Vann said to his knowledge the Skiing Company had no financial interest in this project. (2) Richard Spaulding, public, SouthPoint Condominiums, said he would like to be on the agenda for what the city policy was on the leasing of air rights regarding the element over Juan Street as proposed in this project. Vann replied that it would be required to have an easement but they were suggesting the rationalization of a link between the building and City Council would have the final say on that part of the project. (3) Alexander Beil, Public, Shadow Mountain resident, said that he understood the Lift 1A was not part of this applicant's responsibility but was the carrot that they were offering the community, a redeveloped lift. Beil said that people would be encouraged to come up South Aspen Street for the new Lift 1A. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD to March 02, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns seconded. APPROVED 4-0. Adjourned at 6:45 pm. ~~ by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk