Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960716PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Steve Buettow, Dave Johnston and Marta Chaikovska present. Robert Blaich was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton asked when the Commission will see the resolution concerning the Post Office. Hunt responded that Nick Adeh, City Engineer is in the process of writing it, he noticed the Post Office has blacked out the parking lines so they are apparently correcting the situation. Garton asked about the special meeting July 23 for Aspen Mountain PUD. Dave Michaelson, Staff responded that the State Geologist was here Thursday and Friday and has extensive comments that will not be in until Wednesday, he called the applicant to suggest tabling the application to the following week so Staff and Engineering will have a chance to review the comments. Garton asked if the GMQS Exemption for 1035 E. Durant Sub., on August 6 should include the County P&Z. Michaelson responded that he was not sure if it was a Community Development sign-off or Joint Growth Management and would check with Bob Nevins who is handling the case. Garton said she did not see the Winnerman Stream Margin Review on the upcoming agenda's and the bank is washing away with every rainstorm, the house is going to fall into the river. Suzanne Wolff, Staff stated that the applicant needs to meet with Engineering to discuss how they will deal with the bank, she thinks it is scheduled for the August 20th meeting. Buettow said Blaich commented at the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting that he would like to see what can be done about cleaning up sites that have been given demolition permits, there is a 6-8 week waiting period between demolition and building permits, he pointed out two sites on the West End that are both safety hazards and littered. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Stan Clausen, Community Development Director stated that the U.B.C. provides that a site must be maintained in a safe and orderly condition, based on that Staff can go look at the site and ask for compliance. Buettow asked Staff to look into the changes made up on Smuggler Mountain, he is not sure who is doing what, why and if they have proper permits, there appear to be new roads, several fences that prevent people from riding on roads into Hunter Creek and up to Warren Lake, new landscaping, subdivision improvements there also appears to be extensive electrical work, septic tank outlets, there is a sign declaring sale intent for a future subdivision, newly planted trees and a landscaped trash dump visible from downtown Aspen. Clausen responded that he would talk with Cindy Houben, Community Development Director to find out what permits are out for that area and if they are in compliance. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. Minutes MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of July 2, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC HEARING: Small Lodge Text Amendments Proof of notice provided. Michaelson stated that Staff has been working with the Small Lodge owners as well as Council for quite some time to resolve some issues that became apparent with the LP zone district, it has been going on for 18 months, at the time it came out of P&Z it hinged on a rather complicated formula of exempting a certain percentage of mitigation for uses that were allowed in contiguous zone districts, he said that he thought that concept was cumbersome and hard to understand, at that point we went to Council and had three separate work sessions, Staff suggested a slightly different approach that resolved some of the conceptual weaknesses that were built into the 30% mitigation formula. Michaelson said that Council liked the Code Amendments conceptually and directed Staff to hold a round table, he summarized what he thought was the consensus from the round table, that the group conceptually liked the concept of underlying zoning and an overlay, they 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 recognized that one of the toughest portions of allowing lodges to convert dealt with mitigation, trying to balance the concept of growth and change, Council was concerned about the loss of bed base and wanted a mechanism where lodge owners who had the ability to expand under dimensional zoning had that opportunity and the idea of growth and change was plugged into that. Staff suggests that the LP zone district, which we all know is very restrictive become an overlay, meaning that all existing LP properties would have a zone district overlay that would recognize the lodge uses as a use by right, other changes include allowing lodges to install kitchens as well as long term rentals, when lodges have trouble filling rooms with tourists they should have the option of renting them, not in terms of deed restrictions but an avenue to fill the rooms during the slow season. Michaelson stated that the overlay zone district requirements are essentially identical to the LP zone district, all existing LP properties would revert to underlying zoning, this would allow them the same or similar land uses available to similar properties in the city, the lodge use is protected by the overlay, they have expansion potential under the overlay and they have the ability to convert to other uses based on underlying zoning. Michaelson stated Council pointed out, and Staff agreed with the concept that a conversion of a 20 unit lodge to 2 or 3 residential units probably has a net decrease in impacts to the community, that deals with just an impact assessment as opposed to the community character issues, for example if a 20 unit lodge on a 15,000 s.f. lot in the RMF zone district wanted to convert to commercial usage the maximum density of underlying zoning would be 4 three bedroom units, the applicant could conceivably develop 8 residential units, which is 2.5 X 20 lodge units, without increasing those impacts, i.e., change as opposed to growth, since the underlying zoning only allows 4 units, the impacts on the community are actually less than the existing lodge units, i.e., change, this would allow the development of 4 additional residential units in the city, while maintaining a status quo, if the logic of the conversion factors is accepted and the underlying zoning limitations are recognized there could be a residual 10 lodge units that would be available to another lodge, in an attempt to preserve the bed base in Aspen and allow lodges that are economically viable to expand, while at the same time allowing lodges that are not economically viable, for one reason or another to convert to another use, he said it makes sense in terms of residential units, we have a number to hold on to, it is much more difficult with commercial and office conversion, Staff suggests that each commercial office conversion be handled independently with assistance from the Housing Office to get a handle on change vs. growth. Michaelson said the mechanism for these conversions, instead of competing through GMQS may mean broadening the Change In Use provisions to include, not only a true change in use but an expansion of lodge units, the impacts and employee generation numbers will be reviewed within a public hearing process to decide if we are dealing with change or growth, he said the Planning & Zoning PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Commission has been given the ability to understand the relationship between employee changes, look at proposed parking, determine visual impacts on the neighborhood and public services and that the proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Michaelson stated that what has fueled this whole thing is language in the AACP that talked about protecting lodge uses, in his opinion that is open to a lot of interpretation, an amendment may be necessary to weave this into the AACP, essentially a separate pool would be created that these lodges would draw from, in terms of conversion, not only for adding lodge units but any conversion residential or commercial land uses. Michaelson stated that Gideon Kaufman has suggested that multi-year allocations be used, we would put two years of allocations in right away to allow those lodges to convert then it would drop back to 8, commercial and office quota changes, Staff suggests that the existing pool allows 4000 s.f. of net leasable, in town, per year in the metro area through a competition system, to his knowledge there has been no commercial competition for at least two years. Michaelson noted at least 170 units have been lost, due to employee housing mitigation and condominiumization, it is unknown if they condominiumized and continue to rent the units out, he suspects they probably did not, balancing a free market conversion with the relative impacts to lodges may also form a pool that can be used for lodges in general. Hunt said his concern is the redefinition of "Lodge", is that defined as part of the LP district or a general. Michaelson stated that it is only applicable to lodges currently in LP. Gideon Kaufman, representing the Small Lodges said that the "Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone" states "The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District is to provide for and protect small lodge uses in areas historically used for lodge accommodations, and to permit limited expansion of these lodges when such expansions are compatible with neighboring properties and provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties", he does not feel the term limited should be used, during the round table discussion there was concern that we wanted to be able to have certain lodges expand, if the Commission determines that one lodge is suitable to add 10-12 lodge rooms the term limited is a problem, the key here is if the expansions are compatible with the neighborhood properties, by using this word it may preclude approving something, in the future that we want approved, he thinks there are safeguards without the need for the word limited. Kaufman also pointed out that in the early 80's this community had a problem with our lodges, we did not have a Little Nell, a Ritz or a renovated Hotel Jerome, Lenado or Sardy House, so at that time one of the goals when lodges were expanding was to use some of the interior space to create meeting rooms and other things the lodging base needed, now that segment of the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 market has been taken care of we are trying to preserve the small lodges and enable some of those to expand, he does not think the .25:1 Lodge non-unit Space is needed, it made sense in 1981, not today. Kaufman stated at the round table one of the existing lodges mentioned that they needed to put a cold roof on to be more economically feasible, in addition, that would enable them to put some windows in rooms that are pretty dark, however, this would put them at 1 '2" over the height limit and the Board of Adjustment will probably not grant a variance on a hardship that has been self imposed. Kaufman suggests a policy that will help small lodges so they have the ability to go to the BOA and make an argument that this is a beneficial use for a small lodge, because it is older, it was built before the setback or it needs to go up one foot, they will have the ability to make the argument without being precluded from the ability to make the change because they don't have the "traditional hardship". Kaufman stated that some Council members were concerned that there is no growth, they want to see conversions but are worried about new growth, he said the formula set up does give the ability to convert from lodge to residential and the "left over lodges" could be utilized by other lodge owners to return to the bed base without overall growth. Kaufman said that we have all been here arguing over what a word means, under the Change in Use section where; 1)the Planning & Zoning Commission determines that a minimal amount of additional employees will be generated; 2) the Planning & Zoning Commission determines that a minimal amount of parking spaces will be demanded, he does not feel we want to limit ourselves to argue what minimal is as opposed to whether or not the project makes sense, he would like to see the terms minimal taken out, he said he thinks we have enough protection without words that he feels will come back to haunt us. Kaufman stated that in; 6) The proposal is consistent with the AACP, he believes there may be six different interpretations as to whether or not allowing a lodge to go out of business in effect preserves the small lodging community, he thinks there needs to be a statement or an amendment to the AACP that specifically acknowledges the ability for a lodge to go out of business and have a different use come in and it will be consistent with the AACP, otherwise he thinks this will always be a battle and we'll never get a step further. Kaufman stated the under Residential GMQS Quota the actual number of small lodges we risk losing are not the full numbers that appear in the chart, conversion does not come in increments, when using a percentage it does not make sense because we are not dealing with lodges that have percentages, we are dealing with one lodge that is 15 rooms, one lodge is 22 rooms, he thinks the concern should be with the numbers that can convert out, since the process was started in 1995 having a quota of 8 room units in 1995, 8 units in 1996, and 8 units in 1997, if this is dragged out longer and longer it will create a situation that will further weaken the remaining lodges, one of the goals is to strengthen the market so lodges may want to upgrade, there is a need in the beginning to have a sufficient quota, or have the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 ability to borrow from future years if somebody utilizes this change in use it should be limited to a reasonable period of time, if it isn't used then it will go back into the pool. Kaufman also stated when converting to office 12,000 may be a more realistic number than 8000 s.f., he thinks it is very important that the office quota be there, be available and not disappear so people don't feel like they need to take it now because it will not be there later, as far as lodge expansion, 72 units not 174 have gone out for employee housing, the other units are condo units that have continued to be rented in the condo market, he said that the changes Council and Staff have come up with are good changes, they make sense and with the small modifications that he suggests, he thinks a good compromise has evolved over this long process. Chaikovska asked that some of the small wording issues be dealt with. Michaelson responded in terms of the "limited expansion in the LP Overlay", Staff does not have a problem not using the word limited because it will be limited by the dimensional requirements of underlying zoning and that was the intent of that word, it was not to force them to develop at a lower level than would be allowed under zoning. Chaikovska asked if Staff had a problem removing limited. Staff did not. Garton asked if only one lodge could convert to underlying office. Kaufman stated that if you look at the square footage the total is only 8,000 s.f., for example the Christiania Lodge, Bell Mountain Lodge, or the Innsbrook Inn, could never fully go out, the only one that could ever go out would be the Christmas Inn, the Molly Gibson Lodge, was recently, totally renovated and is not likely to ever avail itself, he pointed out that a quota that somehow ties to the reality of what is out there, is needed. Chaikovska asked if Kaufman wanted a quota that accumulates every year or take the total quota and borrow from future years. Kaufman responded that the word that bothered him was "total", "this would allow 4, 000 s.fi of conversion per year, for a total of 8, 000 s.f", he feels it would forever lock in 8,000 s.f., there needs to be some ability to go higher than 8,000 s.f. Garton said that Staff has asked to look at this for a two year period. Michaelson stated that his concern is, this is somewhat uncharted waters and he thinks it makes sense to be careful, he said he understands Kaufman's argument but that is assuming total conversion of a lodge, he thinks they will spend a lot of time with Council discussing a sliding scale of allowing a larger quota for the initial year to let those conversions happen right away, then ratchet it back down. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Garton said that is the same that has been asked for in any kind of conversions, in the beginning, you would like to see a little bit more and then review it. Kaufman said the same concept applies to residential to office, in residential there is a yearly quota, he read this as one quota forever locked in. Garton said she read that P&Z would look at it after two years. Michaelson said that was the intent. Chaikovska stated that it can always be revisited at any time in the future. Garton asked about the word minimal that Kaufman did not like. Kaufman stated that as long as it is mitigatable and P&Z has to approve the project, that is the determining factor so you are not tied by saying P&Z likes this project but someone made a good point this really is not minimal, he would like the project to rise and fall on its own merits not by the fact that someone objects to the project because their definition of minimal is different than P&Z's idea of a good project, he said we have all seen words come back and used in a way that we did not think were intended. Tygre said she did not agree with that, she thinks mitigation for the fact that employees are generated is one thing but there is an impact on-site of an additional number of employees so it is not just a mitigation matter, obviously these will be site specific evaluations, she stated that she would not like to see the Commission get carried away thinking the only problem is mitigation, she would just assume see the word minimal in there, the word minimal can be argued both ways. Kaufman responded that his only argument to that is that he thinks the determining factor on which P&Z looks at ought to be the project and whether it makes sense, if it is a good project and fits in with the different criteria as opposed to getting hung up on whether one employee is minimal, two employees are minimal or three employees are minimal, he thinks the word minimal takes the emphasis from the project to the number of employees that are generated. Tygre does not see a problem leaving it in. Chaikovska agreed with Kaufman because she finds the Commission getting into a lot of subjective standards, whereas the Commission has a lot of objective standards that are dealt with, mitigation, parking, what the projects impact is and the fewer subjective things dealt with, the better. Chaikovska said at least the public has an idea of what the rules are words like minimal, from a legal standpoint come back to haunt you, she has the same problem with; 6) The proposal is consistent with the AACP, as it is we have trouble interpreting the AACP because it seems to fit less and less how we are evolving into the future, she 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 sees us changing the AACP in the next two years to evolve with how this community is evolving. Garton stated it is the direction of Council and Commission that the AACP criteria be on every review. Chaikovska responded maybe it could be defined a little more. Michaelson responded it is inherent in the way the AACP is written it is not a land use plan, it is a character based document there will always be people standing on different sides of the table saying it says "X" not "Y", his concern is not so much in that debate, he thinks that is healthy, his concern is the way the Small Lodge policy reads now should be dealt with because it could read we should not lose a single lodge unit in town, clearly that is not consistent with the thinking these revisions are running on. Garton asked when is the time, Kaufman suggests the time is now, it may take direction from Council to say when. Michaelson said in his mind that whole debate is bigger than these amendments, he suspects what may happen is the ordinance would go before Council and suggest Staff revisit that and make some suggestions that would be more consistent with the intent of these amendments. Kaufman stated that another way to deal with this in the short term is in the "Where as" clause, the finding by the P&Z and City Council is that by adoption of this ordinance, in terms of some lodges being able to go out it is found not to be consistent with the intent of the AACP, that would at least give us something to go on and hold our hat to. Garton said she feels the community round table that supported this amendment is important and she agrees with Kaufman that this should not be held up for #6. Garton stated that there are still some big issues but did not think it has to hold up the process because a lot of it is discussion from elected officials, she congratulated Staff, Dave Michaelson in particular has come up with a terrific way, it is not onerous to the community and protects the neighborhoods that surround these lodges. Mooney asked if there was a safety net or specific text language to protect us from the impacts of lets say a Brass Bed putting in kitchens then converting to condos, then being a long-term residential 29 unit condominium complex in that residential neighborhood, without parking or typical mitigation that would allow a structure that size to have that many pillows and that much impact on that area, it is obvious PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 that is the best use of that building to get a return on their investment, then we are dealing with a homeowners association thus out of these regulations. Michaelson stated that would essentially be caught between the gray area between underlying zoning and the overlay. Mooney stated that disturbs him the most, he can pick a couple that are obvious that would make that conversion and have serious impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Michaelson responded that since it only deals with LP zone properties and your going into underlying zoning, any condominiumization would have to be consistent with either the LP Overlay which has standards for parking and things like that or if it went into Residential uses it would have to conform to underlying zoning. Kaufman said that if you look at underlying zoning, it would limit the 29 lodge units to become 7 two bedrooms or 5 three bedrooms, so going to residential would not allow 29 units, if it stays a lodge and installs kitchens, then deal with the same kind of scenario that you have for the Aspen Bed & Breakfast, put in some type of rental requirements and owner uses, it can't just convert to free market, it has the ability to either reduce its density to comply or if it does install kitchens to condominiumize then it will have to keep the lodge desk and there has to be some kind of rental pool. Kaufman stated that dealing with 300 s.f. rooms converting is not like a Gant unit or and Aspen Alps unit where people fix them up and never rent them. Michaelson stated that he is concerned that the previous condominiumization language that predated Colorado Common Ownership Interest Act, (CCOIA) had very specific rental restrictions and things like that in terms of retaining a central reservation desk and providing traditional lodge support services, when the condominiumization regulations were rewritten, Michaelson said he does not think they were included, but he also does not think CCOIA restricts doing that. Garton asked if Council approved condominiumization. Michaelson responded it is a Staff level review. There were no public comments'. Hunt stated that he agrees with Tygre in dealing with the word minimal, he has a problem passing it on to Council without dealing with this, he suggested in place of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 minimal, it should say what we want to achieve, for example; 1) acceptable; 2) minimal is appropriate; 3) minimal is appropriate; 4) minimal increase; the major questions is on #1, what does the Commission want to accomplish in place of the word minimum. Kaufman responded that acceptable is better than minimal because it would be acceptable to the Commission. Michaelson stated that Clausen's point is the word minimal comes right out of the Change in Use provision in GMQS, he does not have a problem wordsmithing this in terms of moving on. Michaelson said that community acceptable is fine to him, but some people from the community have a very different perspective on mitigating impacts of growth than others do. Chaikovska stated that minimal is a little more quantifiable, but acceptable is something we could determine with some subjectivity. Garton responded that Tygre's point is that minimal is important on this list. Chaikovska said that is something the Commission will determine when it comes before us. Garton responded it flags the Commission. Mooney stated this is for future Commissions. Kaufman stated that the Change in Use provision, adopted through the AACP was very limiting, what we are trying to do is embellish on that therefore, he does not think the exact wording is necessarily appropriate because minimal there talked about one unit, we are talking about the possibility of more units. Garton said that the Commission can ask Staff to work with this again before it is moved to Council. Tygre stated that we have been talking about the idea that all these changes will be subject to review and re-evaluation after two years, is that something that should be incorporated into the plan, if so she does not see the language. Michaelson responded that he incorporated it in the ordinance to Council, there is essentially a "sunset clause" that would force all of these revisions to come back before P&Z and Council, he thinks the language he used is 18 months. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Kaufman stated that we will be discussing that with Council because in 18 months we will just be in the process, he doesn't know if anyone will be through it yet. Tygre said that the period of time is subject to discussion, as long as there is some period of time in there because we really do not know the affects of what is going to happen. MOTION: Hunt moved to table the proposed revisions to the LP Zone District to address additional issues with proposed changes and continue the public hearing to July 30, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. Motion carries, 6-1. Chaikovska voted no. Biennial Review of Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Clausen stated that this biennial review is called for under ordinance 14, series of 1991, on the anniversary date which is June 10,1996. Staff solicited reports from the Aspen Music Festival and School and from the Aspen Meadows. Clausen said that some of the recommendations from the 1995 season have been implemented, some have not, the purpose of this meeting is to review the reports. Clausen stated that he sent copies of the reports to the neighborhood, they called and stated that they felt they should have had the opportunity to meet separately, in advance of this public hearing to discuss the reports so they could prepare statements to be included in the Staff report. Clausen said that opportunity was not afforded to the neighborhood because he did not feel that was the process called for under the ordinance, there has been subsequent discussion that some type of round table activity, with all parties present is desirable or necessary of this review, he asked the Commission to determine whether or not this would be a useful adjunct to the biennial review. Clausen said the Commission may want to look at whether or not there are some additional mitigation measures that ought to be implemented or if the Commission feels there are some mitigation measures that were promised and expected in the past that have not been implemented or you can determine that things are proceeding, basically on course. Clausen stated that the Chief of Police, Tom Stephenson was here but had to go, the Chief indicated that they do traffic enforcement activities including radar patrols, particularly on Sunday, in conjunction with times the Music Festival may be letting out to enforce the 25 m.p.h, speed limit, the Chief said at the last biennial review the speed limit was 30 m.p.h, in the residential zone and at the request of the neighborhood a study was done that determined a 25 m.p.h, would be appropriate, that was implemented in late 1994, subsequently the city has implemented a city wide 25 m.p.h, speed limit. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Clausen stated that the 1995 season recommendations were from a consensus activity carried out by Bob Gish. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton stated that the antique lights have not been put in, also the neighborhood asked to have a policeman at the barrier on Lake Avenue during concert time. Clausen asked if that was at Lake and Gillespie. Edward Sweeney said it is right at the end of the pedestrian walkway at Lake Avenue and Gillespie Street, they suggested that having a policeman there would be the only way to keep cars from cutting through the pedestrian walkway and to his knowledge he has never seen one. Chaikovska disclosed that she lives at the corner of 3rd and Hallam and she has done her own survey of how many cars do not stop at the stop sign, 32 out of 50 never bothered to come to a full stop, she said a little boy was hit at this corner two weeks ago, they just race right through. Chaikovska stated that 3rd street has become an incredible thoroughfare and she would like to see a little more change, in terms of the routing of the traffic in the West End, she said she has never seen a policeman, in the West End monitoring traffic, at least nowhere in the four block area she lives in. Hunt stated that there was enforcement after the last biennial review and they found that predominately people were driving the speed limit, at that point it was Hallam and it was 25 m.p.h. Hunt said that he has always said the stop signs on 4th street are the most ignored stop signs in the city. Tygre said what authority do we have to make the police enforce this. Garton stated that tonight the Commission has to decide whether the Aspen Meadows traffic mitigation plan, that was agreed to back in 1991 and refined in 1994 is being met, if the Commission finds that it is not, as far as enforcement by the police we can pass that on. Buettow asked for a report on each of the recommendations, he asked if there is a phone at the bus shelter. Sweeney responded there is. Jan Collins said it is not at the bus shelter it is in the middle of the parking lot. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Sweeney stated that it is at the West end of the bus line so the Institute can use it as well. Buettow asked if the shelter has been moved. Sweeney said there is only one bus shelter and it has not been moved. Clausen stated that he is somewhat familiar with them, but he is also interested in hearing if there are any issues with respect to these recommendations, he does not believe these recommendations are from the Planning & Zoning Commission, they were recommendations from and adhoc activity conducted by Mr. Gish and exactly what ensued after that is not clear, which from his perspective, as a Staff member is the problem with an adhoc activity, there is no formal record made of things required and who will do them. Clausen said the first recommendation for the 1995 season states ~maintain the signage, speed bumps and traffic patterns established for the 1994 season", the traffic pattern was maintained as was the signage and speed bumps were installed at certain locations in the West end but the neighbors petitioned to have them removed, there was not a clear consensus, certain people suggested that speed bumps would be very useful, others said they were an impediment, unpleasant or whatever, the city has a program that now requires a petition from the neighborhood that contains a substantial number of signatures so that the Streets Superintendent feels comfortable that there is an adequate consensus; 2) stated that additional traffic enforcement from the Aspen Police Department was requested, the representations from the Chief of Police indicate they are providing traffic enforcement, he said it sounds like those recommendations need to continue; 3) request approval from Council for additional antique street lights on Gillespie and Fourth, Clausen stated that Bill Early, Electric Superintendent has a program and budget for installing street lights, he too has a process for installing them because very often street lights have been installed and met with the objection of neighbors who do not want them at their particular location, it is not clear at this point if that is still something that is desired, if it is the Electric Department will need to be petitioned to install it. Hunt added that he would like to see an intersection street light on Fourth & North. Clausen asked if they needed to be antique street lights, because some of the street lights are on some of the remaining overhead utility poles. Hunt said in the case of Fourth & North he does not think there is an old existing utility pole there because that was part of the ~unlit" section of the city, Fourth Street goes substandard after passing Hallam, he prefers, from a safety issue to 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 have a street light there, he has to live with a regular street light at Fourth & Hallam. Garton stated that Fourth is supposed to be the pedestrian walkway and it is not well lit. Garton asked if the walkway was gravel and if it had the recommended split rail fence. Sweeney responded that the goal was to create a pedestrian link between the Music schools main sidewalk that comes out at Fourth & Gillespie to the Lake Avenue walkway, right now it is a dead zone of parking area so people walk along the edge of the street to get to the Lake Avenue walkway. Clausen asked what is the basis for the split rail fencing being removed, after the season. Sweeney said the idea was to separate the pedestrians from the street however, Jack Reid, Streets Superintendent was concerned about snow removal with a split rail fence right along the edge of the street, he asked that it be removed. Sweeney stated that most of the people who walk in the Lake Avenue direction tend to walk on the North side of the parking lot that leads to the Third Street extension, generally people who go out to Gillespie are headed up to Main. Garton said that numbers 5-10, as far as the report and Ed Sweeney are concerned have been met. Sweeney stated that #8, has not been met at this point they have not gotten all the lodges to stop using the back lot, he said this was not implemented last summer because the payphone was not in, which is another reason the phone is at the West end, the idea was the buses were to use the East end of the drop lane and the courtesy vans were to use the West end of the drop line. Sweeney stated that with the phone in place he would like to, with the force of the city explain to the lodges this is where the courtesy vans must drop-off and pick-up their patrons, he said they would also be putting in their brochures. Joan Bayoud, public stated that eighteen wheelers barge down Hallam Street heading for Highway 82, many come up the other way although it says Do Not Enter, she has called the police about it and for two days & nights there were no trucks, she called back to tell the police they started using the road again and they suggested she come to this meeting, she said there is a dip in the road but it does not stop them, she thinks it is very dangerous. Garton agreed that there needs to be more traffic enforcement in the West end there is so much short cutting through there. 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Bayoud asked if the trucks are supposed to use these roads. Clausen responded that he believes trucks are not excluded from any of the city streets, any truck which otherwise obeys the speed limit and so forth may go on any street, the issue is one of configuring stop signs or other impediments so it is a more natural course for them to take Main Street. Sweeney stated that the Music Associates and the Meadows are required to have their service vehicles use a specific route under the traffic mitigation plan, he said they have their drivers and vendors use the designated route, they do not cut through the neighborhood, if they do, he wants to hear about it. John Schumacher, public said he lives at Eighth & Smuggler, and asked about ordinance 14 that states "all commercial traffic to the Meadows" which in his mind would include Blazing Paddles, Coca Cola trucks, sparkling water trucks, linen trucks are supposed to go down to the new entrance to the Meadows. Sweeney stated that is the Aspen Institute, not the Music Festival. Garton stated that Schumacher is correct. Schumacher said that includes the Meadows vans, one after the other uses Eighth Street, he thinks they are supposed to use Seventh, it is a problem, Coca Cola trucks come into town and right at Poppy's restaurant if there is a break in traffic he can take a left and he does it, going into the Meadows on Eighth street. Clausen responded that they did receive a complaint, with respect to the Meadows vans using Eighth, Staff called them and reminded them of their obligation to use Seventh, they said they would comply, he stated that it is easier to get the Meadows to comply than it is to get the providers of other services, but they would try. George Vicenzi, public represents the West End homeowners stated that they are very frustrated with the Planning Staff, at the end of the last P&Z meeting, March 7, 1995 Bob Gish was leaving and there were issues that were too detailed to present to the Commission at that point, they felt there should be some meetings to discuss these items so they could work them out on a small level and come to the Commission with their conclusions and then decisions could be made. Vicenzi said that because Bob Gish left, the result of the March 7 meeting was put off, in terms of who would decide how to solve these problems, who would they (the West end) go to when they felt things were in violation, how to go forward with the issues they brought up at that meeting, the issue was they wanted a meeting with RFTA and the MAA to sit down and discuss the new figures, on the bus 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 counts because there were some discrepancies on bus trip counts from the previous year. Vicenzi stated they felt there were a lot more than RFTA indicated, he said he waited for several weeks then contacted the city and was told that Stan Clausen would be taking Bob Gish's place, on this issue. Vicenzi said he called Clausen and asked to meet with him, bring him up to speed, look at one of the busy concerts, analyze the traffic and bus flows and go over the recommendations for the 1995 season, the recommendations were a result of many hours on the part of the citizens, the city and all parties involved (MAA & RFTA), they were not acted upon at the March 7 meeting because the meeting was sidetracked with other issues. Vicenzi stated that Clausen met him for the last concert of the season, he said he pointed out the recommendations for the 1995 season, where the walkway would be, he also pointed out resolution #21 of 1993 calling for a meeting of interested parties, the neighborhood, the MAA, RFTA at the end of every season to review the season and make suggestions that may improve the next season, he talked with Clausen in the Spring and explained that in the past there have been meetings in the Spring to respond to the MAA and Institute reports on a smaller committee level to work out the small details. Vicenzi told Clausen that if he waited until June to get the reports there wouldn't be time to make changes for the upcoming season, he said Clausen told him he would try to get the reports earlier. Vicenzi stated that they contacted Amy Margerum, City Manager who suggested they have an outside person come in to coordinate some small meetings so they can work on these problems, he said that he received notice of this meeting four days prior and he asked that no action be taken on the MAA portion of the traffic mitigation plan and that the Commission direct Staff to meet with them so they can come up with a plan to get input from the neighbors with a comprehensive response as to what is going on. Garton stated for Staff to be constantly meeting and to put that onus on all of MAA and RFTA to keep resolving issues and suggesting new mitigation is not the idea of ordinance 14, if there are big problems with them being in compliance with the mitigation plan, then yes we have to do it, but the charge of the Commission and Staff is to look at what the mitigation plan is and decide whether it is being met, every two years. Garton said that things in non-compliance can be tracked, she said it is a burden for the community to keep meeting, she said she knows the West end feels it is a burden to their neighborhood but this is a festival that goes on eight weeks a year. Garton stated that this Commission will only look at this every two years, if you want to continue to meet and stay in communication with RFTA and the MAA through letters that is fine. Vicenzi said that the Commission passed a resolution saying there would be an end of the season committee, that was never done, he said they did meet with Dan 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Blankenship, RFTA on the issue of bus trips, they are satisfied with his figures but at this meeting they are not prepared to respond. Garton stated that this committee would like to meet after the end of each music season, at the end of August beginning of September. Vicenzi responded that was required in the resolution. Planning & Zoning Resolution #21, 1993 states; "The MAA shall appoint a Transportation Coordinator who will be responsible for (including but not limited to): f organization and conducting of an end-of-season "debriefing" meeting with interested neighbors, RFTA, and pertinent City department representatives for immediate feedback on the preceding season's operations and to recommend changes for yearly implementation outside of the required biennial reviews." Garton asked when the biennial review is supposed to be. Clausen responded that the ordinance does not specify when the biennial review takes place, it specifies when the report on the mitigation plan should be received, the ordinance specifies in the years 92, 94, 96, 98 .... on the anniversary date of the passage of the ordinance which happens to be June 10, 1996, prior to June 10 he said he telephoned the MAA to remind them, they said they would work on the report, it was received later in June and somewhat after that the report came from the Aspen Meadows, the ordinance goes on to say the reports should be reviewed by Staff and Staff may recommend modifications based on the report, but in any case any modifications recommended, should be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Clausen stated that the resolution has a little different twist is states the MAA shall appoint a transportation coordinator.., it is clear from this resolution that scheduling yearly meetings would be a role the transportation coordinator would play, and at the March 7 meeting Bruce Kerr, Chairman at the time stated "if this item shows up on our agenda before the next biennial review, I will ask someone to make a motion saying that we find the SPA is in substantial compliance and we will not look at the issue again until the next biennial review". Clausen said it seemed clear to him that there had been a substantial amount of discussion on the biennial review. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney suggested certainly we want to hear the comments of the West end and if they don't feel that they have had sufficient time to prepare, lets table the matter to a date certain, give them an opportunity to review the reports, talk to Clausen and anyone else they wish to talk to, then come back and meet with the Commission again, because the next review will not be until 1998. Garton said the reports need to be received in June, doesn't it seem appropriate that a biennial review should not happen until September, when everyone has had time to digest the reports, talk with each other and watch how the season has occurred and then meet in September to discuss what happened over the two previous seasons, then if we recommend different measures to be taken they can be implemented over the winter. Chaikovska stated that she had to leave but supports tabling this until such time as we can take this whole issue seriously, she views the West end and the entire traffic issue as very serious, that whole area has developed far more than we ever expected it to, we have the music tent, we have Paepke, Harris Hall, the Institute, it is a very big issue, in terms of traffic there are more events going on, even in the off-season. Chaikovska urged the West end to take it seriously, us to take it seriously and stated the biennial review should be a serious event more than lets just meet, chat about it and make recommendations. Jan Collins, public asked if Clausen's plate is more than full, that someone could be hired to help facilitate this with city staff. Garton stated that Barbara Umbreit may be able to help coordinate meetings. Clausen said that she has helped with other meetings. Garton said that actually hiring from outside would be a call from Staff and Council. Vicenzi said that they would like to have Umbreit do a meeting with the neighborhood and get the information, then decide at that point whether a smaller committee's could be formed, he said Dan Blankenship said he would be happy to meet with them, Umbreit will be the first line of gathering information and then go from there. Sweeney stated that he wanted to speak to the one notion that there haven't been any meetings on this issue since the last time P&Z looked at it, what we are talking about here is what Bob Gish was trying to do, we had extensive, exhaustive meetings, from Gish's report there are a lot of items of non-consensus and he suspects there will be if we go through that exercise again, the glaring one is the 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 issue of whether or not there should be buses going down to the performance facilities, that is going to be an obvious issue of non-consensus so for the staff time they have put into this over the years and will continue to put in, he hopes to get some direction from City Council as to some decisions about the items of non- consensus, beyond that he said it does not matter how good an arbitrator you have there are going to be items of non-consensus, that will continue for year, after year, after year. Garton asked if Sweeney would be willing to put in the staff time for the report required by the ordinance but also meet post-season with them before it comes before the Commission. Sweeney said they are looking for constructive solutions to the problems, but a lot of meeting time gets wasted on the items of non-consensus. Clausen stated with respect to a facilitated activity, they have always included a broad spectrum of representatives, discussions with Margerum have been based on the idea that if we had such a meeting, it would include representatives certainly from the principal parties, the MAA, RFTA, the neighborhood but might also include parties that have a more peripheral interest but could function objectively and creatively as problem solvers, such as the Lodging Association, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, people who have been involved in the past with other city round tables. Mooney said that discussing parking, West end transportation mitigation, to him the non-profits operating on these campuses and in this area are dominating those residential areas, there is big business interest here and to claim that it is non- profit, to him that means somebody is given a bonus so they don't have profit at the end of the season, the resort activity that is going on in the West end, on these campuses, under the guidelines of non-profit, "art oriented enterprises" is really something, if we are going into this and have a round table, we should find out how many more events there are this year, how many more people there are, if the Arts Council is bragging about having 500 full-time employees, 10,000 hours of volunteer hours and 59 million dollars in revenue, he feels there are impacts that go along with that and basically affect the entire community. Garton said that is another issue that is not part of the biennial review of the traffic mitigation plan, she hears Mooney and agrees it is a very large, philosophical discussion. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Collins stated she thinks we need to go back to why the SPA was granted to the Meadows, it was granted on the basis that there wouldn't be tremendous impacts to this neighborhood and if there were going to be impacts that those would mitigated all the way along the line, this biennial review is a part of granting approval for Harris Hall and other improvements made out there, she agrees with Mooney that everything is growing out there, the for-profits are now in their backyards. Garton stated that in the approval for the Aspen Meadows plan, profit is not talked about, the MAA has always charged admission that is something that is not really under this Commission's purview. Garton said their largest traffic impacts are really only nine weeks of the year, she knows things go on year round, she suggested that staff look at the approvals to see if there is any restriction on the use. Vicenzi stated that Mooney has brought up the big picture, what we are dealing with now, with this biennial review is the small picture of the traffic mitigation, specifically for the West end, if some type of round table is done, he would like to keep it basically for the neighbors, the mitigation plan is for the neighbors, he does not want lodges saying they want traffic to go through there for their customers convenience, this mitigation plan is not for them (the lodges), he would like to keep it for the West end. Vicenzi said at some point, going before Council, we might have a round table about the big picture of what is going on in the entire community. Garton said she thought by involving the lodges, by them being informed of the concerns, they would then inform their van people. Vicenzi stated that was great, once they decide they can inform them, the lodges are not thinking about buses going by their house, their kids sleeping or not sleeping, kids getting run over, they are thinking of their customers. Garton said that the "us" & "them" sounds like the Ireland, British Peace Agreement, who is going to sit at the table, she thinks if the city wants to include some of these people, the Staff represents the entire city and it is up to them who will come. MOTION: Hunt moved to table action on the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation plan and continue the public hearing to September 17, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. 20 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16~ 1996 Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk Minutes .................................................................................................................. 2 Small Lodge Text Amendments ............................................................................. 2 Biennial Review of Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan .............................. 11 21