Docstoc

CITY OF KETCHUM

Document Sample
CITY OF KETCHUM Powered By Docstoc
					CITY OF KETCHUM SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, December 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. City Hall, Ketchum, Idaho Commissioners Present: Chairman Greg Strong Commissioner Anne Corrock Commissioner Harold Johnson Commissioner Ron Parsons Commissioner Rutherford Contract Planner Lisa Horowitz Recording Secretary Greg Travelstead Citizens

Also Present:

Chairman Pro Tem Johnson called the special meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING upon the application of SUN VALLEY VENTURES, LLC for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation(s), Zoning Designation(s), Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit, Large Block Plat and Waterways Design Review Preapplication with regard to Tax Lots 6980, 7642, 7643, 7833 and 7926, and portions of Tax Lots 7638, 7639 and 7640 (unincorporated land proposed for annexation) and the remainder of Tax Lots 7638, 7639 and 7640 and Tax Lots 7796 and 7641 (within Ketchum City limits), all located at 1801 Warm Springs Road. The proposed site is 76.75 acres in size, of which 11.25 acres are currently within Ketchum City limits and 65.5 acres are proposed for annexation. The proposed project is described by the applicant as a residential resort community and nature preserve/parkland. The Comprehensive Plan designation requested by the applicant is Residential Occupancy. The zoning designations requested by the applicant are a combination of Recreational Use (RU), General Residential - Low Density (GR-L) and Tourist (T) as shown on the application on file with the City. The proposal contains a total of 352,435 developed square footage. Henry Dean introduced Bob Bisnoe and Steve Roth, members of the Warm Springs Ranch Ownership Group. Mr. Dean presented a revised plan for community housing and relocation of the tennis courts. The developers had spent considerable time and effort planning for the courts to be located at Atkinsons' Park and the team was surprised by Ketchum Park Superintendent Mason’s memo dated today (December 22, 2004) which opposed the Atkinsons' Park location. The applicants had intended to present the Atkinsons' Park plan during this meeting and Mr. Mason’s very recent letter made it rather confusing as to how to progress the tennis court relocation issue.

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 1 of 8

Chairman Johnson asked the Commissioners to explain their ex parte, if any, discussions which may have transpired regarding the project. Chairman Johnson said that he had invited Henry Dean and the other Commissioners to a Christmas party where no details of the application were discussed. Commissioner Rutherford acknowledged that he attended this party but discussed nothing in particular with respect to the project. Commissioner Parsons said he was also at the party but that nothing in particular was discussed regarding the Warm Springs application. Jim Ruscitto, project architect, introduced the plan for tennis courts at Atkinsons' Park. The proponents had discussed seven tennis courts to be constructed but a Staff Report was made available today which recommended the Park and Ride parcel as the preferred location for the courts. Mr. Ruscitto said they would proceed with presenting the Atkinsons' Park plan since they were until very recently under the impression that the Atkinsons' Park location had been tentatively agreed to. Mr. Ruscitto stated that the tennis program had the largest youth participation of any Recreation Department program in the valley and that the Atkinsons' Park proximity to the school meant it was a great location for the new tennis courts. He said that there is not sufficient space at the Park and Ride site and also that location is not optimal since it is further from the school. Mr. Dean restated the proponent's proposal to rebuild the existing four (4) four courts at Atkinsons' Park, plus three (3) additional courts and a central facility, plus a $50,000 grant to the Parks Department to help finance the management of the facility. He also said that the City of Ketchum would generate approximately $25,000 per annum through usage fees. Mr. Dean then addressed Ketchum Park Superintendent Mason’s memorandum comments about conducting an economic analysis of the viability of a short golf course at Warm Springs. He said that there simply will not be any golf at that location regardless of any proposed analysis. Commissioner Corrock asked what was the decision process for deciding how much land was available for tennis courts on the Park and Ride site. Mr. Ruscitto said that assuming the location of the YMCA would be near the middle of the lot, there was not enough room for both tennis courts and parking on the remaining land unless a parking structure was built with tennis courts on top which would be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Ruscitto then introduced the concept for building community housing on their site and mentioned that the Mayor intended to solicit RFP’s for community housing on the Park and Ride site. Mr. Ruscitto said that the existing fairway area of the site was not available for employee housing which was development taboo. He demonstrated some locations on the parcel which the owners believe is suitable for employee housing. He said that three additional units could be built in the condominium area above the parking structure as well as some key employee housing near the existing golf shop. These ideas would result in ten community housing units, plus ten employee housing units, for a total
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004 Page 2 of 8

of twenty units on-site which would conform to the standards of the Blaine/Ketchum Housing Authority, some of which would be somehow reserved for or dedicated to employees. To achieve this, the owners would need some height restriction waivers, especially for the hotel structure. Contract Planner Horowitz asked how much net square footage of housing was being currently proposed. Mr. Ruscitto said approximately 18,000-20,000 square feet. Commissioner Rutherford asked for clarification of the number of units and the square footage. Mr. Ruscitto said about ten (10) units at 800900 square feet each and the remaining ten (10) units at 1,100-1,200 square feet each. He said that there may be some units in the 600 square foot range. He then explained the massing of the heights which would require a waiver saying the excess height would not be used across entire buildings but would be relieved in places by lower roof heights. Mr. Dean said the square footage figures are fungible and can massaged to achieve particular sizes or number of units provided that approximately 20,000 square feet was the maximum. Commissioner Johnson asked how many units would be for rent versus for sale. Mr. Dean said that approximately half would be for rent to employees with half as deedrestricted “for sale” units. Contract Planner Horowitz said that Michael David, Executive Director of the Blaine- Ketchum Housing Authority (BKHA), was unable to attend this meeting but he had told her that the Authority would like to see roughly 30 percent of overall residential as community housing. Mr. Dean reiterated the offer and mentioned that the BKHA gross square footage percentages were not pursuant to ordinance but rather a negotiable factor with the P&Z Commission and City Council in the context of an annexation and PUD application. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the employee housing would be available for rent or for sale. Mr. Dean answered yes. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the ten (10) community housing (deed-restricted) units would be for rent or for sale. Mr. Dean said they would be for sale. Commissioner Johnson then asked whether the employee housing would be for seasonal or full-time employees. Mr. Dean said he was not yet sure but would prefer that the employee housing be used for permanent key employees. Pat Colley, Chairman of Noble House, said that housing at their two hotel properties in the Florida Keys was all devoted to year-round staff. Commissioner Rutherford said that part of the P&Z Commission’s job was to draw lines in the sand and he wanted to see thirty (30) employee and community housing units overall given that he believed there is plenty of the applicant's space available. Bob Bisnoe asked if there was some latitude on the unit sizes and if so, the proposed increase in units to thirty (30) might be workable. Commissioner Rutherford felt that was acceptable since more studio units would be beneficial and the BKHA likes a mix of units. He also said that it is important to have employees living in Ketchum, to utilize schools, to minimize traffic, etc. Mr. Bisnoe agreed to study the issue and try to expand the number of units.

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 3 of 8

Commissioner Parsons agreed with the target of thirty (30) units. He wasn’t too concerned with the unit sizes or mix, or the combination of employee versus community units. He was comfortable with the proposed height waivers. Mr. Bisnoe asked if there was flexibility to retain more ownership if more units were built. Commissioner Parsons felt that was acceptable. Mr. Dean asked if the tenants needed to be able to lie down flat in bed. He then asked for input from the other Commissioners as to if the applicants can get to thirty (30) units, would that be acceptable. Commissioner Corrock asked what percentage of the gross project would the thirty (30) employee and community housing units. Steve Roth said that given seventy-five (75) free market units, thirty (30) additional community and employee units, thirty (30) would be approximately 30 percent of the gross figure. Contract Planner Horowitz agreed that thirty (30) units would be approximately 30 percent of the gross residential units. Mr. Bisnoe said that in their Berkeley and Santa Monica projects, the relevant community housing percentages were applied to the total of number of free market units, not to the “grossed-up” figure as proposed by the BKHA. Commissioner Johnson wanted to see thirty (30) community and employee units in total. He was not too concerned about the mix buts wanted them used by year round residents, not used as second homes and wanted them to be designed in compliance with the BKHA guidelines. He suspects that most of the cabins will be sold as second homes so he was in favor of increasing the applicant’s proposed twenty (20) units to thirty (30) units. Commissioner Corrock asked whether the employee housing component would increase with the proposed increase from twenty (20) to thirty (30) units, i.e. would the additional ten (10) units all be deed-restricted or all employee. Mr. Dean said that was yet to be determined, it’s a work in progress and that formula will develop as the planning proceeds. He said that the management company would have valuable insight on this. Chairman Strong said that he was not so concerned about the square footage or the particular number of units but supported the idea of expanding the developer’s offer by 50 percent. From his standpoint, a 50 percent increase in square footage or units would satisfy him. He was also not overly concerned about who owns the units - the developer versus deed-restricted. Mr. Dean asked for feedback about the location of the tennis courts. Commissioner Johnson said he liked the proposal but that the City Council would ultimately decide the number and location of the courts. He thought the trade-off of a golf course and eight tennis courts in exchange with the renovation of four existing courts and construction of three new courts plus a central facility and $50,000 may not be sufficient.

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 4 of 8

Commissioner Rutherford asked that the developer’s present a plan and attach costing to it. He thought the current approach might break down over locations. He would prefer to see a dollar amount that the applicant would offer. Mr. Dean said he would respond in writing after consultation with the owners. Mr. Bisnoe said that the golf course and tennis courts should not be considered public assets to be horse traded. Chairman Strong agreed with Commissioner Rutherford's proposal of placing a dollar figure on the proposal for new courts. Mr. Roth said that they felt that the loss of the golf course was more than compensated by the stream restoration and donation of the Wood River Land Trust parcel and asked whether the financial recompense which the Commissioners sought related to the tennis courts only at this point. Commissioner Rutherford answered that yes, the figure he proposed should only relate to the tennis court trade-off. Commissioner Corrock wanted more information from Staff as to the location of any tennis courts since Ketchum Park Superintendent Mason had recommended that the Atkinsons' Park location was not suitable. Mr. Dean said he appreciated Commissioner Johnson’s comments about the City Council ultimately deciding the location of the tennis courts and community housing but he wanted a 5-0 recommendation from the P&Z Commission as to some proposed outcome before the application reached the Council. Commissioner Parsons said that thirty (30) units of community and employee housing would satisfy him but he was unsure whether the tennis court issue was moving forward, sideways or backwards. He wanted to discuss the issue with Staff. He thinks the financial proposal is the way to go so that the City can decide the location issue on its own without delaying the overall annexation and PUD process. He didn’t think that the Park and Ride site was a reasonable alternative and he would like to see discussion of that site discontinued. Mr. Dean said the applicants would come up with a cash figure, would no longer discuss potential location and would present an analysis of how the cash figure was determined. Contract Planner Horowitz said that the City Council will likely want to see an analysis of land costs and the rationale for locating the courts off-site versus on-site. Commissioner Corrock agreed that the land costs are an issue that should be discussed since the City did not have an abundance of spare land available for the tennis courts. Chairman Strong suggested that the Commission consider that the nature preserve is also being contributed for public recreation and that the issue of the tennis courts needs to be considered in that context, not just the tennis courts in isolation. Mr. Dean introduced the hotel management team: Pat Colley - Chairman and Mr. Dean’s friend and associate for forty years Jamie Colley - son Scott ????????? - Legal Counsel Rob Web Special Counsel
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004 Page 5 of 8

Pat Colley presented his firm’s current portfolio of hotels and vision for the Warm Springs hotel and spa. He said that he has lived both full and part time in Ketchum for fifteen (15) years. His company only gets involved in interesting projects and the goal in this project is to create the best or one of the best mountain resort hotels in the country. He provided some history of his company. They began with a hotel in Dallas, whose owners had hired a management company which underperformed so they started managing that property and others as well. One of their Dallas hotels has the highest revenue per room in town and one of the fifteen (15) best restaurants in the country according to Zagat Guides. He presented some brochures for some of their properties and discussed various awards and recognitions they had won, especially for their restaurants. They outperform the big chains by developing properties that respect the communities in which they exist, the local history and the local charities. Mr. Roth wanted to clarify that the current restaurant will be relocated/rebuilt and remain family style but that a second restaurant will exist in the hotel as well which will be positioned higher in the marketplace. Commissioner Parsons asked about the cyclical and slack season problems that face any hotels located in ski country. Mr. Colley said that they had analyzed the market and feel that pricing strategies can effectively address the seasonality issues. Commissioner Parsons asked whether they had a Noble House “club” to internally market the property to its existing customers. Mr. Colley said yes, they circulate a newsletter to their repeat and preferred customers. Commissioner Parsons asked whether there was a convention or retreat functionality included in the design. Mr. Colley said that was included in the design and that a 3,000 square foot space was included for meetings. Mr. Dean wanted to address slack season issues as well. The applicants feel that they will be able to perform cosmetic surgery with the spa and cabins used as recovery rooms to increase the occupancy during the shoulder seasons. Mr. Dean asked for a special meeting to be scheduled for January 17, 2005. Contract Planner Horowitz asked if the Commissioners had received a letter on the suggested upcoming meeting schedules. The Commissioners had not received the letter. Contract Planner Horowitz said that the regular meeting scheduled for the second January meeting had about an hour available in the schedule and perhaps the applicant could continue the Warm Springs agenda to that meeting. Commissioner Corrock said that she preferred to hear the Warm Springs application in special meetings. A general discussion ensued as to suitable dates and individual calendars. January 12, 2005 was generally agreed as the date for the next special meeting for the Warm Springs project. Commissioner Rutherford asked the hotel team if there were any planning constraints or issues from their standpoint that needed to be addressed to help them build the best hotel possible such as any waivers, etc. Mr. Colley felt that the applicants were already in the process of requesting the required waivers.

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 6 of 8

Chairman Strong called for public comments. Christopher Simms, Executive Director of Citizens for Smart Growth, generally supported the annexation but objected to certain aspects. He reminded the Commissioners that they have lots of latitude in the process. He liked the Wood River Land Trust preserve concept and cautioned the Commission not to let other issues dilute that benefit. He said his group as well as the BKHA would prefer a range of community and employee unit types and sizes but would also look at the total net square footage offered for community housing. He also thought the Commission should seek a timeframe for the development of the community housing component as it shouldn’t be unreasonably delayed in the development schedule. Finally, he said that the tennis courts should be located off-site so as not to encroach in the proposed Wood River Land Trust preserve area. Wally Lindburg, resident of Bald Mountain Road, said that although he was a proponent of community housing, he thought that the proposed increase in community housing should be considered in the context of increased traffic and morning traffic/sunlight dangers. He and his neighbors want the potential increase in traffic considered and do not support any height waivers. Sharon Costa de Beauregard, resident of Bald Mountain Road, said she was concerned about changing the GR-L zoning. She was not able to see the proposed plat of changed zoning but objects to the increased zoning density across the street from her property. She said that she does support the overall project and likes Noble House as managers. She felt that the developers should own all the community and employee housing units to ensure proper maintenance and cleanliness of the units. Earl Fiewell, resident of Bald Mountain Road, thought that the increase in traffic generated by the project would not be manageable since lots of the right-of-way is currently used by parking and it is already congested during the busy season. The grade of the road and icy conditions are currently a problem that will only be made worse by the new development. Chairman Strong asked Mr. Ruscitto to respond to this traffic concern. Mr. Ruscitto said that the Bald Mountain access road will be substantially reconfigured and widened to accommodate the increase in traffic. Martha Ingram, Ketchum resident, is disappointed about the loss of the golf course but overall is supportive of the project, largely because of the donation to the Wood River Land Trust, especially in light of the aging population needing open space. She also suggested that the Commissioners consider wildfire issues, that one bridge for ingress and egress may not be safe in the case of a wildfire down Bald Mountain. Jay Cooper, 25 year Ketchum resident, thought there was a general community agreement to keep the golf course area as a green open space. He was against any

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 7 of 8

proposal for a monorail and thought that traffic would become a problem. He thought the existing golf course area should not be developed. Chairman Strong asked Mr. Dean to address the monorail concern. Mr. Dean said there is no monorail proposal. Electric carts would be used to transport owners and guests within the property. Mr. Cooper thought that the developers may in the future find the electric carts might not work and that they would eventually want the access to be a normal road. Mr. Roth said that the preserve would be in public hands forever and that future development would not be possible. Mickey Garcia, Ketchum resident, said it was an exciting project, suggested that people do a two column approach (plus and minus). He said that Commissioner Johnson was confused in thinking that the development should be occupied year-round. The cabins would likely be sold to wealthy individuals with multiple homes. He also pointed out that the owners were offering to deed large acreage to the Wood River Land Trust so that was a major benefit and the golf course and tennis courts have been on private land. He can’t see that the developer has any responsibility to replace or operate these. He thought the Commissioners should consider the mix of tenants in the community housing and hopes that not all will be reserved for the project employees. He thought the approach of the developers so far had been reasonable and that the application should be approved. Ms. Costa de Beauregard was concerned that the Wood River Land Trust may not have enough money to operate the property. Contract Planner Horowitz suggested that she discuss this with the applicant after the meeting. Ms. Costa de Beauregard also was not sure why the tennis courts should be located off the property saying maybe the hotel guests and cabin owners would want tennis on-site. Chairman Strong closed the public comment period. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to continue the application and public hearing process to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled for January 12, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Rutherford seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Strong adjourned the meeting at 1:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted,

Greg Travelstead Recording Secretary

Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting December 22 2004

Page 8 of 8


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:42
posted:1/31/2010
language:English
pages:8