Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050920 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20, 2005 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................................... 2 HOLIDAY HOUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD ..................................... 2 THE ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD ...................................................................................2 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20. 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Brian Speck, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Jasmine Tygre, Steve Skadron and Ruth Kruger present. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. The Planning Commission delayed the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: HOLIDAY HOUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Holiday House. Joyce Allgaier stated the applicant requested the public hearing be continued. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the Holiday House PUD to October 4, 2005; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, approved. Public hearing: THE ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Aspen Club Conceptual PUD. James Lindt provided the proof of publication, posting and mailing the notice. Lindt stated this proposal included a Conceptual PUD, Conceptual SPA and Conceptual Timeshare Reviews to alter the interior of the Aspen Club as well as to construct 19 timeshare lodge units and 8 affordable housing units on the Aspen Club parcel. Lindt said P&Z was the recommending body for the conceptual reVIews. Joyce Allgaier introduced herself and the planning commission to the audience; she commented that this was a multi-step process, which begins with the planning and zoning commission as a recommending body to city council. Allgaier explained that hearings that get continued do not get re-noticed; when it gets to city council there would be a new legal notice in the paper and mailing. Lindt stated the applicants proposed an interior remodel to the existing Aspen Club building to change some of the room uses to include new fitness studios and new areas for physical strengthening equipment as well as a new entrance to the club. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20. 2005 Also a new outdoor pool and 19 timeshare lodge units would be constructed, 13 in a townhome configuration and 6 timeshare lodge units located inside the Club. The town home units were 9 3-bedroom units and 4 4-bedroom units; timeshared into 1/16th interests per unit. The Club units were 4 3-bedroom units and 2 2- bedroom units time shared into 12 estates per unit. Also proposed were 8 2- bedroom affordable housing units as category 2 rental units to mitigate for the timeshare lodge units. Lindt named the discussion items as the proposed use, a mix of the existing facilities as well as the addition of a timeshare lodge, which replaces some of the lodging base lost over the last decade. Staff questioned the location of the units because the majority of the neighborhood contained long term residential units. The FAR proposed on the site was .6 to I; it was 60% of the lot size. The setbacks for the affordable housing would be established through the PUD, which were less restrictive than the underlying rural residential zone district; the east side yard setback as 3 feet and the front yard setback as 7.5 feet. Staff believed that the affordable housing units could be rearranged to lessen the need for the setback variances. Staff believed the Architecture was compatible with the neighborhood. The timeshare use plan met the code requirements and plan to rent out the units when not used by owners on a short term basis. There would be an on-site front desk in the Aspen Club for rental of the units. Lindt stated the Growth Management implications were met for the affordable housing requirements. There were 157 parking spaces on-site; currently there were 91 parking spaces including the 35 parking spaces across the bridge and 56 spaces off of Ute A venue. Lindt said the code required 8 parking spaces for the affordable housing units, 17 parking spaces for the 19 timeshare lodge units and 43 parking spaces for the existing Aspen Club; the applicants proposed the same number of spaces for the affordable housing and timeshare but 113 parking spaces for the Club. The 35 parking spaces will remain on the Crystal Lake Road side. Staff believed there was a parking issue currently with the demand that exceeds the current parking provided however 2'1z times the Club parking requirement was excessive and suggested the parking be brought down to a more moderate increase than they currently have. Lindt said the applicant provided a traffic report suggesting that Ute Avenue has the current capacity to serve the proposed traffic that would be generated by the proposal; the community development engineer agreed with the statement that Ute Avenue could hold the additional traffic proposed. There would be traffic calming on Ute Avenue with speed humps and better delineating the parking pockets. Lindt said in 1996 when the parking was proposed off of Ute Avenue City Council 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20, 2005 made the decision to limit the amount of parking to limit traffic and required the Aspen Club to have a shuttle. Sunny Vann, planner, introduced Michael Fox, applicant and part owner of the Club; the architects were Bill Poss and Kim Weil; Diane Moore worked with the homeowners in the neighborhood. Michael Fox stated that it helped to put this into context; the Aspen Club was a unique place and at one point or another has touched members of the community in every facet. Fox said the Aspen Club viability depended upon the core of the community asset and adding the residential aspect, the outdoor pool and the creation of a destination holistic health facility. Fox said they wanted to make the plan for the Aspen Club work for all the constituent groups. Fox said one of the current problems was the Club was under parked and there was a great opportunity here to solve that problem. Fox said that this project would improve safety along Ute Avenue and the trails. Sunny Vann explained this was a full PUD and it would go through the process. Vann said there were two fundamental issues: (I) the question of use and (2) was the parking issue and ancillary to that was Ute Avenue itself. Vann said they had no choice but to call this a timeshare lodge because when the city developed the timeshare regulation it did not address residential units which were sold in a fractional ownership. Vann said they were not trying to build a lodge but residential units that could be used by multiple owners for programs at the Club and were available for rental by the public at large. The Club itself served as the amenity, check-in and registration for the units; it was primarily a residential project in scale and design. Vann stated the Aspen Club had a long history of evolution. Vann described the area surrounding the Aspen Club in the Callahan Subdivision including the Benedict Building, the Silver Lining Ranch, the Aspen Club Townhomes, Crystal Lake Road and the 2 single family houses on the original parking lot. The 1010 Ute Subdivision, Ute Cemetery, Ute Park, Ute Park Subdivision and the Gant provide a healthy mix of residential uses both long and short term, commercial office uses, the club and affordable housing so there was the full gamut ofland uses in the this area as well as many other areas. Vann said the SPA process was used for almost everything surrounding the Aspen Club to accommodate the diversity of this area. Vann noted the proposed project would have the townhomes occupied on a more permanent basis with access to the club. Vann said that the use compliments what is going on at the Club; the use was consistent with other similar types of uses scattered throughout the community and the key consideration was that the impacts associated by allowing this use in this 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20.. 2005 location can be reasonably accommodated by the neighborhood and community at large. Vann said the building complied with the height requirements, reasonable FAR, setbacks except for the affordable housing component and the stream margin review regulations. Vann said the parking issue was technical but important to understand the proposal. The current parking requirement was 91 spaces; there were 56 spaces on the Club side and 35 spaces in the original parking lot across the river; the rest of that space was turned into 2 single lots with 2 homes under construction. There was a successful van service provided. About 60 % of the 1800 members of the club were locals; the reduction jn parking on site has not been successful and some say it has increased traffic on Ute Avenue. The current parking was inadequate for the club membership of approximately 1800 people. Vann said the proposed parking included 8 spaces for the affordable housing; the code requirement for the timeshare components (17) and club parking (132), which totaled 157 proposed parking spaces. Vann said there has .been a traffic analysis done and they will take the lead on what was currently an unacceptable situation on Ute Avenue; the improvements would include speed tables to slow down traffic in key locations, perhaps necking down the street where it crosses the Ute trail, better delineated crossings at the intersection with South Original Street, signage and better recognition for the parking. The plans would be submitted with the final review for the proposed project. Steve Skadron asked the dates of the aerial photos. Kim Weil replied the larger one was dated May 2003. Skadron asked how far can an SPA overlay go to change the underlying zoning. Lindt responded the SP A overlay allows for an applicant to establish a certain use plan for the site as well as establish dimensional requirements with the exception of FAR. Lindt said the PUD process establishes the FAR. Skadron asked if the shuttle was owned by the Club. Michael Fox answered there were actually 2 shuttles, one owned by the Club and the one owned by RFTA (the cross town shuttle). Skadron asked the usage of the cross town shuttle. Skadron expressed his objection to this proposal. Skadron asked the number of employees at the Aspen Club. Fox replied that it was seasonal; at any given time about 90 with about 130 on payroll and about 200 W-2 forms a year. Skadron asked if the residential component was necessary to keep the Aspen Club viable. Fox responded that it was a great question and he said that he thought it is; it was critical to the evolution. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20, 2005 Brian Speck asked why there was less parking in the upper lot and how the lots were built on. Vann replied from the record there was always a service entrance off of Ute Avenue; there was an increasing use of the back lot by club members. Vann said that Dick Buetera came to the city to move the predominate entrance of the club to Ute Avenue; he wanted to expand the parking significantly. Vann said there was concern for traffic on Ute; the increase in parking was another level under the surface parking and there would be a sub grade garage. Speck asked if Dick Buetera was still an owner. Fox replied that he was not. John Rowland asked if the existing employees were mitigated for. Lindt replied there was the same amount of net leaseable space in the existing club as well as the new revised plan, so the code doesn't require additional employee mitigation for the change. Rowland asked where was the employee parking located. Vann responded there was parking for the employees across the river and there would be spaces provided adjacent to the employee units. Rowland asked if there was a phasing plan for construction. Vann replied the project would be built at once but construction management was a key issue. Lindt noted the construction management plan requirements of the city were fairly extensive; haul routes, access points, equipment, construction parking and dust suppression. Jasmine Tygre asked if there was not representation by the former owner in 1996 when the entrance changed that this was needed to save the club. Lindt said the minutes did not reflect that but Council wanted to limit the amount of parking back on Ute as an auto disincentive for one as well as concern for the impacts on Ute Avenue. Dylan Johns asked if there were other destination spas that were timeshare. Vann answered St. Regis. Fox replied that Canyon Ranch was both and Golden Door operates as a timeshare because the people come for the same 2 weeks almost every year. Public Comments: I. Michael Hoffman, attorney representing Stewart Lasher and Rhodes Hart, showed the properties owned by these two individuals were on either side of the bridge. Hoffman said the development would have a substantial impact on his clients' properties because they currently look at tennis courts and trees and if this is approved they will see II townhomes. Hoffman said it will affect their view plane, increase noise, light and the activity level. Hoffman questioned the neighborhood compatibility with this development due to the increase in usage by the fractional component and stated that it was not compatible with the AACP. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20, 2005 2. Paul Taddune, attorney representing the property owners to the east and were the grandchildren of William and Eleanor Stephenson, said their property was not depicted on the maps. Taddune stated the reasons for not approving this project were the same as the reasons Michael Hoffman described. Taddune said this project was in effect moving the downtown core out to the periphery of the city. 3. Rick Head applauded Michael and Sunny for a great presentation. Head stated, as a 12 year neighbor, he thought this was consistent with what was going on and hoped the commission would look favorably upon the entire application. Head noted the parking component was essential because parking was a problem in the neighborhood. 4. Kathleen Tracy, Susan Komen Foundation, spoke to the value of the Aspen Club within in the community and how much the Aspen Club has given to the Foundation. 5. Mike Otte stated he was an officer and owner (40%) of the Benedict Building known as the Powderhouse Condominium Association. Otte said Buetera converted part of the parking lot into two expensive lots and then he sold the club. Otte said that the team was of high quality that Michael has employed and he supported Michael Hoffman and Paul Taddune that this was not the right thing for that end of Ute Avenue. Otte said there were 2 elements related to the road; snow plows can't plow with speed bumps and the houses place there snow from their driveways into the streets which makes the road thinner and thinner as winter goes on. Otte suggested checking the drainage. 6. Linda Schmehl, the general manager of the Aspen Club, spoke on behalf of the employees of the Club, who were dedicated and excited about this proposal. Schmehl stated that they have looked at the market of people who come to Aspen and understand the people to find a fit for the people to find out what Aspen was all about and to find a way to help this club grow. 7. Pete McClain said that he lived in the Ute Park Townhomes and seconded what Rick Head said about approving this proposal with as many parking spaces as possible. 8. Sasha Haas said that she did the marketing at the Aspen Club but prior to working at the Aspen Club she was a member of the Club. Haas asked the commission to approve this proposal. Haas stated the Aspen Club was involved in the community. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes September 20. 2005 9. Bruce Fritz said that he was an owner of the townhomes across the river; he stated that the Aspen Club was a good neighbor. Fritz said of the 22 townhomes, duplexes and 12 homes there were only 3 owners that this was a principal residence. Fritz spoke of the nature of the residences as being second homes for many of the owners, excluding himself and his wife, this was their only home. 10. James Lindt read a letter from Sue Hollensworth who objected to the proposal concerns for the setbacks for the affordable housing units. Bill Poss, architect, introduced Kim Weil and provided a model of the project, which described the context of the immediate buildings around the site but doesn't show how far the entrance was from the parking on the other side ofthe river. Poss explained the architecture, the outdoor pool, the underground parking and access. Poss said there was a landscape buffer and relocated the service yard to the back. The employee units have covered parking underneath the units. The roofs were gabled and pitched for a residential look to the townhomes and residences. Poss said they were staying within the height limit in the code of 28 feet and there would be an entrance directly from the parking garage into the club or facilities. Poss utilized renderings to show the entrances and pool area. Kim Weil said there was a Stream Margin Review and the top of bank was mapped and detailed following the Stream Margin Review Guidelines in the Code without a variance request. Jasmine Tygre asked if there was any more information on the vertical envelope. Vann replied in researching the record the height was represented as a certain height with topography taken into account. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearingfor the Aspen Club Conceptual PUD to September 27th; seconded by Brain Speck. All infavor, approved. A site visit was slated for Tuesday, September 27,2005 at noon on site. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8