Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790306 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on March 6, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, John Schuhmacher, Joan Klar, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Perry Harvey. Also present were Karen Smith and Joe Wells of the Planning Office. Approval of Minutes Harvey moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 1979, as presented, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Aspen Institute, Preliminary PUD and SUbdivision, Final SPA, Public Hearing Collins_opened the public hearing. Wells noted that they met with the applicant this morning and the Planning Office asks that the application be tabled after the presentation and public hearing. Wells noted that Council gave conditional SPA approval for the conceptual SPA plan in August of 1977. This process requires the adoption of an SPA plan for the parcel in the City and full subdivision and PUD procedures. The appli- cant filed a conceptual PUD and subdivision application which was recommended for denial from P&Z but approved conditionally by Council in June, 1978. Wells stressed that this is a crucial stage in the application. The applicant is anxious to get an opinion from P&Z about how the application reacts to the Master Plan. He suggested tabling after the presentation and public hearing and discontinuing the subdivision considerations and republishing for that public hearing at a later date. Andy Hecht, attorney for the applicants, clarified the procedure the application must follow. Donald Ensign, planner and architect for the application, feels they have developed a program that satisfies the interests of the City and the Institute and results in a way that they can operate as a year round conference facility. He noted that City Council itemized 16 concerns they wanted addressed in the preliminary submission. He reviewed and responded to these points. 1) Will the Institute remain in Aspen; Ensign said the Institute still represents that they will stay in Aspen. 2) Documentation support of an exemption under the GMP; Ensign stated that the Institute has been tenatively exempted from the GMP, the land mass of the Institute has not been calculated into the GMP calculations for potential growth areas. Council wants them to show that under the policies of the GMP, they are minimizing the impact of this kind of devel- opment and that it is consistent with the pOlicies of the GMP. 3) Scoring under the GMP; they have not been scored yet but have addressed the elements that are used to evalu- ate GMP applications. 4) Resolution of alternate site selection for employee housing; Ensign said they would address this later in the presentation. 5) Refinement of the estimate of employees; Ensign said this was documented in the submission. 6) Refinement of estimate of faculty/conferee ratio; this is also documented in the submission and will be discussed in the presentation. 7) Agreement to restrict three types of use: conferee, faculty and employee; Ensign said their entire program is based on that assumption. 8) Empirical documentation to support a 7,000-9,000 square foot restaurant; Ensign said this would be addressed in the presentation. 9) Satisfactory resolution of the interior and exterior circulation and transportation system; Ensign said there is a major portion of the presentation that addresses this issue. 10) Impact on the neighborhood; Ensign said they feel the major impact is generated by the transportation problem and will be addressed in that section of the project. -2- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission March 6, 1979 John Doremus In addition, they have addressed the visual impact on the neighborhood. 11) Refinement of the program facilities evidenced by the marketing that is to be used; there is an entire section in the submission that addresses what the market for a conference center is and specific market they are addressing with their conference center. 12) Assurances of continued use for conference in the winter versus tourist accommodations; Ensign said these two items are generally the substance of their marketing study. 13) Tying down open space and open to the community, trails location and dedication; Ensign said this is a technical item to be negotiated with the County and the City. 14) How the proposed development will affect views, visual impact and architectural siting; this is addressed in the submission. 15) Give the community some programs in the community's interest so that the cO~Anity can be involved; Ensign stated that there were 18~ast year that the community used the facility and they will continue this. 16) Phasing schedule; Ensign said this was addressed in the SPA plan. The second part of the presentation addressed the needs of the Institute. The Institute, begun in 1949, has grown to accommodate 55 executive seminar programs. There were 82 such programs elsewhere in the world under the Institute. Ensign said this is the Institute's home and they intend to stay. He stressed the need of the Institute to be on a sound financial basis. The second concern of the Insti- tute is housing supply for employees, conferees and faculty. The third concern is to locate all facilities in one spot. The limit for units is 356, 50 of which are employee housing. They propose 245 guest rooms, 61 faculty units in 18 living entities, and 50 employee units in duplexes and eightplexes. Ensign introduced Gene Keluche, current owner/manager of the Scotsdale conference center, marketing expert and native of the Aspen area. Keluche added that he is the Chairman of Western Conference Resorts, a company that specializes in the design and development of conference centers. He gave a slide presentation on the statistics of various aspects of conference centers. Harvey asked if Keluche felt there is an economic viability in what the Institute is proposing. Keluche said they have tested this model at 150, 200 and 250 rooms; they feel it will work at 250 rooms. Wells asked what happens to the facility for the balance of the year if they are only lookiqg at 5-5~ months of marketing. Keluche said four months is the Institute's own use. Klar asked how they will deal with the problem of getting people from Denver to Aspen since there is already a problem with booking on the airways. Keluche did not think this would affect the Institute at all. He noted that some people would not come because of the altitude and the age of the participants. They will be selling packages that force people to fly on weekdays. Ensign then explained the Master Plan maps and showed the proposed layout of the expansion. Doremus said he was impressed with the plans and felt it would work as a conference center. He did not feel items two and three of the City Council concerns were dealt with at all. He also had a problem with items 10(_13 and 17. He also pointed out that the land north of tne river is for sale and should not be considered with their calcula- tion of open space. Ensign represented that this land is not included in the submission. Doremus noted that the map colors this parcel in the submission. Ensign said to color that land "sold". "-' ...) BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER "'........ -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS March 6, 1979 Regular Meeting Nick McGrath Herman Edel Jeffrey Sachs Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Doremus felt they should address transportation more thoroughly with such information as car counts, etc. Ensign said there were trip generation numbers in the submission. Doremus said he counted cars last summer and compiled these figures: July 20, 1978, 8:30 AM, there were 106 cars parked at the Meadows, August 10, 1978, 9:00 AM, there were 92 cars parked at the Meadows. Between these two dates, the average car count was between 45-55 cars in the morning. This averages one car for every two rooms. He felt this conflicts with what is represented in the submission. He also felt they should address the impact of community use of the facility on traffic genera- tion in the West End. He Objected to the truck deliveries to the facility. He felt they made some asssumptions that may not be true such as 50% of the employees will have cars, 50% won't. He did not feel that the conferees will wait for a bus if there meeting gets out early and they want to ski. Ensign felt that Doremus' concerns were legitimate and needed to be documented. He felt all these items were covered in the submission. McGrath was representing a couple adjacent land owners who generally support the Institute. They addressed the degree of specificity of the maps and other data. He submitted a written document of the neighbors' concerns. He felt the Institute's promises must be put in writing. He noted that the track area, although shown as open space, is also shown on the design analysis as an area that could be developed, which is not addressed in the submission. He also noted that the number 356 was given by Bill Kane and he felt they should clarify what constitutes a living entity. He felt they should also clarify the scope of the commercial development in numbers. His clients support the Institute but feel they must have this all in writing. Edel said conference centers market the strength of their center and the area. He felt they would be marketing the facility as a prime ski resort. He felt the Institute is a very important part of Aspen. He did not feel they could confine the conferees to the center with the things Aspen can offer. He also questioned how they could fly in all these people. He felt the major objection of the people in the West End is the degree of development. He felt they should be willing to negotiate a smaller approach that could be viable. He noted that the peop~ in the West End are not obj ecting to employee housing '" they want it distributed through the entire area. Andy Hecht said they are negotiating a program that their consultants feel is the only viable solution. Keluche explained that with rising construction costs, in order to make the center commercially viable, they must get more revenue units so the overall size of the project increases. They estimate each unit will cost around $60,000. Edel asked if they would state in their application that this facility is limited to certain uses. Ensign felt they could accomplish this with the appropriate agreements with the City. Sachs asked what would happen after the conferees are finished with their business and wish to attend the night life in Aspen. Ensign said they are proposing a transpor- tation and shuttle system for this purpose. Keluche said all the conferences are packaged so the conferees pay for the meals, etc. in advance. -4- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission March 6, 1979 Master Plan Public Hearing Code Amendments, Trash Access, Density Bonus, Housing Overlay, Fractional Fee Interests Larry Yaw Harvey asked if they schedule "golf" time in their confer- ence schedules. Keluche said about one of twenty confer- ees take advantage of their 36-hole course in Scotsdale. The course is also open to the public. Keluche said the agent that books the conference is mostly concerned with business; he would like it to be a pleasurable experience but the other recreational amenities are really extra. Ensign asked Keluche to explain how this center will be marketed. Keluche said they have a computerized direct mail list of 23,000 supported by trade advertising through three pri- mary trade journals. Klar asked if Keluche is involved in the management system. Keluche said he is just a con- sultant. Klar asked for a list of the community facilities. Wells asked for a list of the programs this winter. Ensign said they will provide these lists. Klar moved to continue this public hearing and table action on this application until the next regular meeting, March 20, 1979, Schuhmacher seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith introduced the item. She noted that this has been discussed over two meetings, most recently ata study session with the County P&Z. These meetings have shown the need for a significant amount of additional work. She suggested continuing with this public hearing, closing the public hearing and republishing for another public hearing at a later date. Collins opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Collins closed the public hearing. Harvey moved to table action on the Master Plan Amendments, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Collins opened the continued public hearing on the Housing Overlay and Fractional Fee Interests. There were no comments. Collins opened the public hearing on Trash Access and Density Bonus. Smith noted that she spoke with vic Goodhard of Aspen Trash. He was disturbed with the amendment now being discussed because of numerous existing problems with the alleys that he feels can only get worse by slackening the size requirements for this access. Nolan Rosall, downtown planning consultant, supported the recommendation from the Board of Adjustment of 20'xlO'xlO' per lot with an addi- tional 10' per additional lot. The trash subcommittee recommended an area 15'xlO'xlO' per lot with a special review for certain uses. Mr. Goodhard suggested uses that generate alot of trash such as ski shops, restaurants, etc. Smith noted that the use can change which may pre- sent a problem. Rosall feels an area 20'xlO'xlO' is a functional minimum. Yaw felt the present requirement is twice the needed space. He recommended looking at the management of Aspen Trash for a possible solution. The present regulation exter- nalizes our trash into our streets. Counting the area under the protective covering in the calculation of FAR discourages a functional area. Andrew Dracopoli felt a specifically designed trash area is far more efficient and functional than allocating the whole width of the building against the alley. He sup- ported the 15'xlO'xlO' recommendation. He also suggested '-' ....,I -5-:- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 1979 the requirement be a percentage of the gross area of the building. The Board then addressed the Density Bonus amendment. Jeffrey Sachs Sachs said he is with a group that intends to build an office building in Aspen. They are outside the GMP and are faced with two alter~~tives. They could use the .75 provided by the code~ seek the .25 employee housing bonus. He said low cost housing is uneconomic to build even connected with an office building. He felt building 1/4 of the building for employee housing in the office district was too much. He felt .15 was a better percentage, They are looking at two small two-bedroom units in their building. Klar moved to continue the public hearing on these code amendments until March 13, 1979, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Resolution of Commendation, Ellen Anderson & Donald Ensign Schuhmacher moved to adopt the resolutions of commendation for Ellen Anderson and Donald Ensign as drafted, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM. ~~P'~~ Sheryl immen, Deputy City Clerk