Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940602 _.__,~_~_~_,.".,_.m,_ ".._..w._______.____ ~ tt RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS " PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 2. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Bob Blaich, Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS David: I would like to say that I have seen one meter in town. It doesn't look too bad. They could use a paint job. MOTION I would like to recommend that the City hold a competition for the painting of the meters and that there be 4 categories--student category, public citizens category, graphic designer category and a category to be selected that is sort of a preservation committee- -the judging to be part of the historic preservation committee. I like the idea of the citizens's category because I am sure there will be some very creative and entertaining proposals similar to the input on the ice rink. I would say "This is decorative painting and not to interfere with any proper information of the meters". Roger seconded the motion with everyone in favor. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Reminded the Commission of special joint meetings with the County P&Z for June 14 and June 28 at 4:00 in the second floor meeting room to review affordable zone district and the AH zone district that is metro in scope. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MOORE FAMILY PUO/SUBDIVISION REFERRAL Tim Malloy, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. The afternoon routes that pick up the high school students cross traffic and park in front of the bus stop in the wrong direction to pick up the students. They then cross traffic again to go back up to Highlands. And it is apparently due to the high school students being pretty aggressive about getting on that bus as early as possible. Otherwise you don't get a place to sit down. There have been situations of them pulling off the younger kids and getting on the bus themselves. I think that is a real serious PZM6.2.94 safety problem that I want to discuss more with Dan Blankenship. David: My guess is that that is a problem to be dealt with in the school district rather than RFTA. Al Blomquist, Park Planning Committee: The Golf Course people have given the County ? for a pedestrian bridge from the golf course across Maroon into Rotary Park. Rotary Park has a trail that comes right here and then presumably the bridge is going to go right across over into Tiehack. That increases significantly the pedestrian conflict especially if kids start wanting to go over here and ski. The cross country option is there also. The summer option is going to be great because it replaces the low trail bridge down mumble. So that is an important factor. The other thing I would suggest that you look at is the possibility of somehow arranging for Maroon Creek Road to extend down to the highway so that we can get rid of Maroon Creek Road in the valley and that horrible intersection down there. And split traffic load of Castle Creek of having it's part of the load and then a new Maroon Creek having it's part. This would allow the Park Planning to proceed with the idea that we are integrating the Moore open space, the high school campus open space and the Marolt all into one unified thing with no street crossings as far as pedestrians are concerned. We have another meeting tonight with the Parks Planning Group so we will be working on this as one of the things we want to consider in terms of the trail/greenway concept of a greenbelt extending all the way from Maroon Bells right into town which is what this is. Malloy: My understanding, Tom, is that you preserved ROW corridor throughout the property when you sold to the County. Tom Moore: We engineered a 30 MPH road ROW through there. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: There is strong concern raised by the neighborhood about doing this so that though it may be a good idea we certainly have the availability to participate in it. But we want you to understand that there are strong feelings in the neighborhood particularly the Aspen Tennis Club subdivision and the actual statement of the Maroon Creek Caucus that they didn't want to do that. So if this is something that wants to be proceeded with that is fine. Tom can make the land available but that is something that should be done independent of this particular operation. 2 PZM6.2.94 Roger: I am not sure at this point that it makes sense to just spread that out along Hwy 82. I would rather reduce that demand along Hwy 82 and replace it with a transportation system. It would have been nice if the Parks people visualize some sort of a corridor for a transport-ation system through this area as well. I see a lot of soft ball fields and soccer and rugby fields on what I thought was supposed to be transportation land and passive park. This is a comment for the County P&Z. They should be the people who are looking at this land use with an eye to what are the potential transportation systems that may be coming on line that can integrate with the present Aspen-to-Snowmass transportation project. It is only logical to include this area or integrate this area within such a transportation system. The County P&Z should be looking at potential corridors. Someone is going to have to take a look at this. We are going to end up doing everything with all the land and absolutely no way to do any transportation. And from a planning point of view that's stupid! Glenn Horn: The applicant has committed to making all of the circulation improvements to the school campus and to play a roll in improving the Castle/Maroon intersection and committed a significant financial commitment to that. It is $250,000. $350,000 for the Castle/Maroon intersection and agreed to participate in improved bus service to this site either in conjunction with Aspen Highlands or independent of Aspen Highlands contributing a pro-rata share. We are at somewhat of a loss as to what else can be done from transportation standpoint by one person. Especially considering other primarily public projects that have been approved in this Castle/Maroon neighborhood where nothing was done at all to improve the trans- portation situation. It is our feeling that the Moores are making an outstanding commitment to addressing the transportation concerns. I don't know what else you could ask from one applicant. It is certainly far more than anyone else has ever done in this valley. So we are concerned that inconsistent with respect to else can be done. the statement transportation. which says it is I don't know what Kaufman: No one property can solve all the problems. If you look at what we have done for transportation to the school, the affordable housing, the play fields--for all of those particular things I think we have identified the most important features this 3 PZM6.2.94 property has and hit on those and made sure we have complied with the plan. Plus all of these rights-of-ways that are community if they want them. And you look compare that to what the school did, the affordable housing project. There has got to available for at all of that hospi tal did, be a balance. the and the Sara: with everyone's planning and your planning with Highlands as well, we might find something. And the fact that it doesn't meet what is in the plan doesn't mean that your whole project is negated by that. The fact that there is affordable housing and the improvements to the school is fantastic. I am really in favor of this PUD. Anything that is built is going to increase people going to and from someplace. But on the other hand you are taking more people off the highway probably going down valley because you have put more people hopefully in this area. We have got to keep hammering away at this transportation. I don't think anybody is saying the Moores have to solve that whole intersection or find the exact route that is going to work for all of these developments. Malloy: There is probably going to be an EMT reduction in the new way the school circulation works. Bruce: I am not sure that the AACP calls for developers or any particular developer to provide an independent commitment for transportation improvements. Certainly they are to mitigate their impacts. So I am puzzled by the language that says "Independent commitment for transportation improvements on Maroon Creek Road and the Hwy 82 intersection and provide an independent commitment for transit use". The 3rd part of that condition #6, however, is one that I would like to see if there is some way that we can address that. Where it says "It does not significantly discourage auto use by the residents of the proposed development". Is there something that can be built into the covenants that there be some sort of park-and-ride terminus there where the bus stops on Maroon Creek Road anyway? Can additional signage be done in the neighborhood encouraging people to ride the bus. Are there some things that you can do to address at least that third part of the condition? Kaufman: There are 2 things we are committed to. That is encourage people to not drive to the Highlands. #2--we will be providing shuttle service. We did come up with 2 things. We are open to creative ideas such as signage and educational things. 4 PZM6.2.94 Bruce: Tell me how the shuttle system works. Horn: That road that links to Highlands is not going to be open to all traffic. It is for pedestrians, bicycles, emergency vehicles and shuttle service to Highlands without any private vehicles permitted on that road. That is jointly worked out. The objections raised about that road have come from the providers for emergency services. That road crosses an area that is affected by potential avalanches. The experts in the field of avalanche mitigation say that no mitigation is required for a road such as this that crosses avalanche paths. For example if you were to have on I-70 where I-70 crosses on Vail Pass in an area that is subject to avalanches, no mitigation is required. And so the County's position is that they don't want to have any roads cross avalanche paths if possible. So that is kind of a hot issue there. Based on that we suggest that it be closed to all private vehicles and only be available to shuttles, emergency services, pedestrian and bicycles. Malloy: The AACP says is that development should essentially carry it's weight. If you are going to do development you should be responsible for making sure that impacts be handled. We don't have a problem with the whole package if the whole package goes through. If Highlands is successful and the connection of Smuggler River Road which relies on Highlands going in and the shared bus service which partly relies on Highlands and the improvements to the intersection which partly relies on the funds from Highlands--I think if that all goes through and it works together then we probably have been successful in terms of having these 2 developments carry their weight. Our problem is if Highlands doesn't go through or is changed in some way that the joint commitments aren't there. We are not certain that what is being proposed by the Moores entirely offsets the traffic impacts. Kaufman: There is a simple solution. Just approve the Highlands. Bruce: This language is sort of onerous. The image that it creates in my mind is that somehow this applicant must come up with some new way, independent of everything else that is going on, to solve the transportation problems of that corridor. And I don't think that is what the Community Plan calls for. David: I think, as a package, this works. But I am also listening to what Environmental Health says and I think from what I can tell there are significant improvements committed to at the various intersections. There are easements committed that will improve 5 PZM6.2.94 transportation. There are re-circulation zones that will improve which will cut down pollution. What specifically is the definitive commitment of the Highland's package? ?: As the ski area gets improved there could be opportunity for some type of joint system. It makes sense from the standpoint of Highlands to have any of the adjoining neighbors to participate in the transit out there. Moore: My proposal here is predicated not totally on Aspen Highlands. But I have spent a lot of time working with them to try and integrate these things so they tend to work together. If Jerry (Hines) throws up his hands and walks out of here I would obviously come back with something else because it wouldn't be logical for me to go stick a ski lift up the side of the mountain I couldn't use. I would certainly try and do a Nordic trail system. I would like to see it all go through the way it is because I think it will integrate that area very well. I have talked with the group that Al Blomquist is with about crossing the bridge to go over to Tiehack. And we have got a good chance to come up with something that will really be great for pedestrian all summer and winter traffic. If Highlands were thrown out of kilter it would not be logical for me to continue what I am doing. Bruce: We are trying to come to some kind of resolution on #6 and maybe a re-wording that somehow #6 says that the proposal is not totally consistent with AACP as standing alone but in conjunction with the proposed Highlands developments it is consistent. Or the combination of the two are consistent. This so that we get a #6 that reads in a more positive fashion than just a flat out statement "It is not consistent". Malloy: Since this was written I have gotten comments back from our consultant and she was very supportive. Her analysis in the last review shows that the traffic generated by this.project was minimal compared to the Highlands project. Roger: Exclusive of transportation, I like this project very much. David: The location of this project being on the bus line is going to heavily mitigate PM10 and other pollutants. My personal feeling is this is in conformance. Sara: Nothing is going to decrease PM10 until we have a whole other mode of transportation. 6 PZM6.2.94 David: These people that will be living here rather than Rifle, Snowmass or Glenwood that are this close to a mass transit system and are more likely to use it. That combined with the pedestrian access to the schools, Highlands and the shuttle system I see some of these as being a substantial reduction. This hearing was continued in the first 15 minutes of Tape #2 which is a defective tape. Anything you can remember regarding the motion on this hearing, I will be glad to insert here. ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE REFERRAL RE-REVIEW Horn There are now 15 single family and duplex integrated in the free market neighborhoods. There are 28 affordable housing units that are in a townhouse configuration. There are still 16 starter units category #1 and #2 and there are also 6 non-family oriented category #4 units. And we had heard from many people that there was also a need for some larger units that were category #4 units that weren't oriented towards family. We thought the changes to the affordable housing program were responsive to what we heard in the process. We reduced the commercial space in the project. And we see now that we have been criticized for reducing the commercial space because there wouldn't be a significant enough nucleus of commercial space in the village to capture the people in the village from having to go into town for all sorts of different retail trips or restaurant trips. The restaurant space was reduced from 14,800 to 8,125. The retail space was reduced from 37,000 to 21,600 square feet. One of the things you need to keep in mind is that we kept approximately the same amount of space that had been devoted to local's serving businesses. The plan for the grocery and the pharmacy and the businesses conforming to the Castle/Maroon neighborhood has remained the same. What we have done is cut down on the amount of retail space that would be oriented towards the tourist accommodations in the village and we did that because we were criticized by the County staff and the County P&Z for having so much commercial space that would be a draw for people that were staying inside the Aspen area to go out to Highlands. We argued the space was necessary so that we would maintain some people in the village and when we did our trip generation and trip 7 ~_~____w~.~._""_,,_,_~,._~_"_~___~.,.~~>__..> ., PZM6.2.94 projections for vehicular trips we had used lower standards for trip generation than were adopted in the County Road and Bridge standards based upon our consultants advice that a lot of the trips for the commercial space would be generated in the village rather than outside the village. People will be walking or bicycling to the commercial space. The County insisted that we use the same standards for that commercial space as any other commercial space in the community and that we couldn't have a lower trip generation standard for the commercial space in the village. So that was another consideration because we were trying to address this question of vehicle miles traveled. with respect to the lodge condominiums one of the things we want to clarify is that the lodge condominiums are tourist accommodations. There are 73 of those units and they will be managed centrally for short term use with limitations on long term stay. Regarding the issue of exceeding the population cap--it is established in the AACP that 30,000 population cap that has been adopted we looked at population generation- -the issue has been raised that that 30,000 cap was based upon the population that would be generated by the Aspen Highlands Resort Hotel and the Highlands Inn. - -the 349 rooms that will be there. And the estimates of the average household ? that are adopted as part of the AACP. And if you use those figures and apply the same figures to the Aspen Highlands Resort Hotel, the Highlands Inn and then to ? free market units and the affordable housing units what you will see is that the new proposal is far less with respect to population generation than the old proposal. with respect to the 60/40 split of affordable housing and free market housing one of the things you need to take into consideration is that the methodology that is being used by the Planning Office staff and the City and County for determining the 60/40 split has been changing over the past month or two. And when we submitted the plan the revised plan we calculated that there would be 252 free market residents and 159 affordable housing residents. 63% of the free market residents would be 159 affordable housing residents. That was the way that equation worked when we submitted the application. The methodology now suggested there would be 411 total residents and the project at 159 affordable housing units. That would show that only 38% of the total population would be affordable housing units. 8 PZM6.2.94 We feel we complied with what was being requested at the time this was submitted. Malloy: With respect to the commercial space reduction, I sympathize with what Glenn says. We felt like the numbers of the previous project were on the high side. We feel like the numbers that are currently proposed are on the low side. With respect to the 60/40 split. I have applicant. That, in fact, has changed. that methodology has changed. to sympathize with the I have to comment that Roger: I would like to see more affordable housing. I think we should find that they are consistent with the 60/40 balance. It may not be how it is done today, but it was done in accordance with the rules that they developed it with. So let's be fair. I am very happy to hear how the condominiumized tourist accommodations are going to work. The commercial--I can understand how the restaurants are a draw for keeping the people there at a critical time. But in the area of the other commercial which was primarily tourist oriented that some of that in the form of ski shops are an essential base service that might be lost in this process. I would like not to see that happen. I don't want to lose that critical mass because if we lose that critical mass, then we are having to transport all those people all the time back and forth to the City. And that is not what we want to do. When you raised the point that with so much commercial space that it might be a draw from Aspen--I really question that. I would like to reject the argument that the commercial which gives us that critical mass is any particular draw from anywhere else. Sara: I don't want another sterile ski village that has no vitality. It should have--where is the base lodge? No one has base lodges anymore. So if you have a condominium hotel--I would still like to see common space at the base. It should be a ski community village in some way--not a private ski area for second- home owners and condominium hotels. There are too many free market homes. Roger: I agree with Sara in that the County objectives in this case really are going to reflect poorly on the City if it gets developed at this state when there isn't the nucleus community. We are the ones who are going to have to live with it. The County isn't going to have to live with it. It happens to be on the their land. But we are going to have to be the ones who have to deal with the impacts. 9 PZM6.2.94 I do agree with Sara here concerning what is a vital community at the base of this mountain. Glenn: One thing I do know is I can count the times on one hand in living here for 13 years that I have gone to Snowmass Village to buy something. Not even to dinner. Bruce: Village will be But the reverse of that is true. The people in Snowmass come to this town every night to eat dinner. And the same true of the folks staying at Aspen Highlands Village. My concern would be us trying to add commercial space to the point where we think that we are going to keep people out there and we really don't. It doesn't work. I understand the dilemma that you are in. We want a vital base area there. I have no concerns at all about Highlands taking business away from the City of Aspen. The concern I have is that all the folks that are out there are going to be getting in their automobile and driving into town. Leslie: So I am adding to #4 where we talk about commercial space: "The critical mass of commercial space must be characterized by support services, public/common space and tourist oriented space. Staff and the applicant must continue to define that balance of commercial space. Roger: It is our belief that the maintenance of that critical mass or the achievement of that critical mass will have a net effect of reducing the VMT. I would also like to put in there that the commercial space per'se at the base of Highlands is not particularly an attraction for people to drive from the City of Aspen to there. Bruce: Do you have a gas station proposed out there? ?: No. Bruce: I think it is so crucial that you have some level of commercial services there that it is not going to attract somebody living on Cemetery Lane to drive out there. But it may keep somebody that lives in Meadowwood or the Highlands Subdivision from coming into City Market or going out to the Airport Business Center. That is the key of whatever commercial activity you have got going there--that and serving your tourist guests. David: I think this is a very good project. I thought it was a great project before. I think that the reduction in commercial space may very well reduce the VMT. I am not sure what the capture ratio will be. -I think this applicant has done a great job of listening to all the agencies. I would be inclined to see some 10 PZM6.2.94 sort of mechanism that allows them to start out building this and maybe coming back and asking for more commercial space at a later date just to move this forward. I think it will work very well the way it is presented to us tonight. It could be that another 2,000 feet of restaurant 2 years from now would really enhance the project. I think it is reasonable to start small and add incrementally if necessary. STARTING WITH #1-- Kaufman: I think that Tim agreed earlier that there is a problem in terms of what was calculated when we submitted. Roger: I suggest we say "It is within the spirit of the 60/40 split with the parameters they were using when they designed the system" . Sara: I don't know why it can't be re-adjusted to reflect what now we understand was a mistake in the calculations. Kaufman: We are still discussing how we are ultimately going to reconcile the different interpretations of what was intended at that particular point in time. They are still uncertain how the 60/40 is to work. Kaufman: There is a concept that everyone of those free market units is somehow not resided. Some of us in this room have houses and live here and I don't think you can say that because they are not deed restricted that there will not be some permanent residents that live in those units. That is something we talked about in terms of incorporating into these numbers. That is part of the dilemma. We don't have a handle on the exact way it is going to come out. I don't think it is fair at this point to say "You don't comply" because no one is clear as to what needs to be complied. I would prefer to say "When you submitted you complied". We understand that there are changes that need to take place. And so this will have to be addressed later. But not make a finding that we are inconsistent. Roger: I am fine with that. Bruce: I am not sure that anybody really understands what the 60/40 numbers mean. It is a little onerous for us to say that they are not consistent or non-compliant when none of us really understand what those numbers are. Leslie: You are absolutely right. We can agree on that. Bruce: I think if we say on #1 something like a finding that, yes, 11 PZM6.2.94 there is an attempt to comply with the 60/40 split--whatever that is. Then between staff, the applicant and the County they will continue to try to reach an agreement on what those numbers really are. David: I look at this particular application in light of the original approval of 300 plus hotel rooms and to move off of 300 tourist oriented hotel rooms when the community plan said we are out of balance--there is too much tourism--there is too much second homes. To move from that position to the conversion concept to where we are now, I think is a huge series of steps for the community. I also see that a lot of those free market homes will be full-time residents. If there could be a preamble I would hope that it would say something to the effect that this is substantially in compliance with the general findings and direction and concepts and goals of the AACP. Bruce: I could buy into that. I am reluctant to say that I would be willing to just buy into the whole project and just turn it over to the County because they are going to hammer you anyway. But that is sort of where I am getting to. Overall I find the project to be generally very good. And generally consistent with the AACP. Therefore I am reluctant to nitpick the proj ect on where there ought to be 14,000 or 8,000 square feet for restaurant space. It is going to be hammered numerous times. It has already been hammered. So if there is a way that we could include some kind of preamble or "Whereas" in front of the recommendation that says that we find overall it is a good project, overall it is in compliance. Yes, there are some areas that we have concerns about--growth or whatever, then let's express those. Roger: I like David's idea of this growing over time as the needs develop. If there is an ability to grow in the future, I can live with that. Leslie: Language for #1. The applicant has complied with the 60/40 split as it was originally intended to be implemented. However, the methodology has yet to be determined. Therefore the applicant should continue to work with staff to comply with the intent of the 60/40 split for revision to the methodology yet to be determined. However the methodology has yet to be determined. Therefore the applicant should continue to work with the County to comply with the intent of the 60/40 split. #2. 12 PZM6.2.94 Horn: I can't help but think that the policy that is addressed in the open space recreation environmental section was intended in some way to differentiate the development of a base area at a ski area that might be developed as opposed to the development or the re-development of Aspen Highlands. When they proceeded with the adoption of AACP they envisioned that Highlands would be re- developed and that there would be impacts associated with it. We think that the impact associated with this project could very well be less than the impacts associated with the Highlands Resort and the Highlands Inn which was taken as an assumption in the development of the Aspen Area Plan. Sara: For us to say that it is not going to have any impacts is just living an fantasy. You are going to have major impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Bruce: Language for this #2--It says the base area upgrades will have significant impacts on surrounding neighborhood, transportation patterns, environmental quality and service needs. Many of which impacts have been mitigated but where not mitigated or inconsistent with the open space, recreation, environmental policy which prefers expansions that have minimal impacts". Horn: What bothers me is that we are going into a process, I believe, where we could be in front of the City Council going through a procedure that has not been applied before to any particular developer. And what concerns me is this idea of you have to be in compliance with the AACP. And that elected officials will treat the AACP as if it is a Land Use Code and not a document that expresses a direction. I don't think the AACP is the appropriate mechanism to be reviewing land use application for anything more than the spirit of what is addressed in a plan. Roger: It is more than minimal impacts. anticipated in the AACP. But I think that was Bruce: If we can agree on some motion where we have got a preamble in front that says we recognize that there are inconsistencies in the plan and that certain elements of this proposal fully comply and are totally consistent and other elements may be inconsistent and need some further work-- MOTION Roger: I move to direct the Planning Office to write a draft resolution along the guidelines of what has been discussed here this evening. 13 PZM6.2.94 with that is basically all that has gone into this before. That motion should include the 12 points of consistency as well as the 3 points of potential inconsistency and the preamble. Sara seconded the motion. David: I will vote against the motion even though I substantially agree with the motion. I do not agree with the items #1 through #4 as presented in the staff memo regarding the inconsistencies. I basically find that each one of those items are consistent with the AACP. So I will vote against the motion. Bruce: I agree with David. But I am going to vote in favor of the motion. My sense is that all the members of this Commission is very much that is favorable with this project. to go forward to the next step of review. feel that there And we want it I think we recognize, although we may disagree as to the level of inconsistency with the AACP. I think most of us generally think there is a project here that can be made to work. David: The only reason I am voting against the motion is that I think the press in this community plays an important roll in communicating what I think it is important that the community and the press understand that we do not have 100% concurrence that this project that this board finds that this project is inconsistent in certain areas. I think it is substantially consistent. I think it is a great project. Malloy: I would like to especially get comment on the second item under #3 where it really talks about conversion. Bruce: I don't have a particular problem with conversion. David: In this instance I think it will lessen the traffic and all the other impacts at this location between town and this location and between the airport and this location. I support the conversion. Bruce: The record reflects what all of us have said. Everyone voted in favor of Roger's motion except David. Bruce then adjourned the meeting. Time was 7:45 P.M. 14