HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870818
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 18. 1987
Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, David White, Mari
Peyton, and Ramona Markalunas. Jim Colombo and Roger Hunt came
shortly after roll call.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger Hunt: The Roaring Fork Railroad Report to the County P&Z
is progressing along. I indicated to them that City Planning
considered this aspect as phase one of the project. We don 't
have commuter rail at this moment but it is 2 miles closer and an
operating system on those rails will be closer than where we are
now. I heard no major adverse comments from the County Commiss-
ion.
STAFF COMMENTS
"-
Steve Burstein: There was discussion at the Council meeting last
night on the Marolt property. The Council did affirm the basic
concept that the Marolt house should remain undeveloped open
space. There was discussion that there be irrigating. That
would be an improvement to that as agricultural land. And the
trail system should be upgraded. The utility lines should be
undergrounded. It did say that the Marolt barn should be used
for historical. They are also concerned about the highway line.
There was an idea that the south 10 acres which is lower than the
basic mesa should be considered for music student dormitories.
Ramona: Another proposal for highway 82 was for keeping it the
same alignment with over and under alternatives.
CHILDREN'S PLAYS HOP CONDITIONAL USE/POD EXEMPTION
Steve: The request is to have conditional use of the Marolt
House as a daycare center for a 1 year period of time. There
would be approximately 40 children serviced by this facility. It
is a conditional use zone district. Furthermore there is the PUD
and SPA overlay on it. This requires review according to the
criteria of PUD and SPA. The P&Z has the option to either exempt
the proposed use from those or to recommend action to the Ci ty
Council to take them through the full process on those two.
1
The primary use of the property is currently passive open space.
It is to be viewed as the entrance to Aspen to give a sense of
open space prior to entering the dense settlement. The community
garden, the Marolt barn, the other uses that are on the property
are either temporary uses or primarily open space type of uses at
this time. The Marolt house has historically been used for a
single family residence.
Given the current open space use of the land and the adopted
concept plan in the parks recreation open space trails plan
element that was adopted by P&Z is that it remain passive open
space. We believe that the daycare center is not compatible. It
is an independent commercial operation. It is not accessory. It
is not really recreation as befits passive open space use. And
given that active use we do have a problem with it in terms of
its compatibility.
This is a commercial service. One that is badly needed in Aspen.
But the Marolt property was publicly bought and basically
enforced of what its function is to be, this does not seem to be
the place for this use in our opinion.
The City Engineer brought up a critical problem. That is the
safe access to and from the house. The dr i veway is so close to
the bridge and the highway over capacity from a traffic point of
view throughout the entire day. There seems to be some need to
address that problem if this use is to occur there. It is also
suggested that there be some system of carpooling in advance in
order to reduce the amount of traffic that would go in and out.
Ruth Stone: I am the owner and director of the Children 's
Playshop. We are here this evening to ask your approval for the
conditional 1 year temporary interim use of the Marolt house as a
child care center. It is zoned R-15 PUD/SPA. I have been asked
to address the issues of the open space element of the Aspen
General Plan, the access and road impact, the onsite improve-
ments, my operation description, the intensity of its use, the
use of the land purchased by the 6th penney and how my use of the
property complies.
As far as our activities are concerned, the heart and the body of
our day is play. We emphasize recreation, physical and social
development being our second goal. We also include educational
activ i ties such as music, movement, nature study, puppet shows,
book s, etc. You must remembe r that children are beginners and
they learn from everything.
The child care business is a boom situation all across the
country. Time Magazine had a feature article on the problem in
late June. It thoroughly discusses the dilemma all across the
country. Government and private enterprise are getting involved
to create programs. Time suggests some very creative ideas to
2
--
provide care. For example in Massachusetts there are low
interest rates to encourage new programs. Plans are being
earmarked for centers in low cost housing projects. Next year
they are going to begin a program that will pay 40% of child care
need for 150 families.
More interestingly San Francisco requires new developers of
commercial space and hotel space to include on-site centers or to
pay $1.00 per sq ft to establish the City's daycare centers. And
a comprehensive bill is before congress this summer.
Perhaps Aspen should look at some of these ideas. Every facility
in Aspen has a waiting list now. Demands so exceed available
space that I told City Council that I think that we are on the
way to establishing the elitist privilege for child care in
Aspen.
The Marolt house meets all the requirements for licensing by the
State Department of Social Services. It has City water. The
heating and sewage are adequate. The existing drive and parking
are adequate and the parking area is well defined already by the
gravel that is there. There is a fire hydrant right at the
corner of the garage. Snow grading will be done. No new
structure will be added. With your approval I would like to put
a sand bar and 3 old fashioned tree swings hanging with tires on
them. Temporary fencing is going to be necessary to separate the
irrigation ditch from the play area when it flows. But the
Department of Social Services regulates me heavily and they will
check to see that that fencing will be adequate.
The house is in good condition and we will act as caretakers.
Our presence will discourage vandalism and we will work with City
staff to define our caretaker role.
An alternate use for the house has been proposed to Council. It
was a residence for a City employee. This in effect becomes a
private residence on public land with no use by the citizens who
really own it. My use at least services 150 people, children and
families access to that proper ty for one year. My use of the
Marolt house won't hurt anybody. Denying this use will hurt many
children and their parents and their employers.
The traffic issue: The access and traffic flow problem do need
some special consideration. 28 of the parents coming to my
center will be coming from Cemetery Lane, down valley, Snowmass,
or Basalt. Those families will make a right turn coming into
Aspen most likely for their jobs anyway. We are not adding new
cars. Then there are 9 that live either on Red Mountain,
Smuggler or the West end. Those people could easily go through
the west end somewhere down power plant road, through the light
at Cemetery Lane, onto 82 and back once again to make a right
hand turn onto that property. That leaves only 6 people
3
including myself who live in the Aspen Club area. Some of us
might choose the Power Plant Road by way of 8th and Smuggler.
Once again with a right hand turn. Some proceed down Cemetery
Lane to Capital Creek Drive, loop back again, come out at the
light, go across 82 and once again into the property on the right
hand turn. Some might choose to go to the light at Castle
Creek/Maroon Creek Road, go up Castle Creek, turn around at the
Prince of Peace church, come back again, loop around and come
again at a right hand turn.
A few might choose to make a left hand turn.
surely an insignificant number making a left hand
should not back up traffic onto that bridge.
The lights at the Maroon Creek Road and Cemete ry Lane do slow
traffic considerably. Though safer now, we lived without the
traffic light at Maroon and Castle Creek Roads for many years
with an enormous number of teenagers making that turn going to
highschool. I am not saying that is safe but we did live with it
for a long time.
But 6 cars is
turn and they
Remember that I will be removing 42 cars from the congested
elementary school building. There hundreds of young children are
playing in an open play yard along with cars and buses. I think
this helps the city. The traffic problem is everywhere in Aspen
not just at the Marolt access. Pedestrians will not be involved
as at almost every other area in Aspen even at the Airport
Business Center.
I have given you a graph here of traffic calls on a yearly basis.
You can see that 6 of the 9 months that I propose for operation
because I am going to move by summer--6 of the 9 months that my
school is in operation are at low accident times of the year.
Vanning or bussing by the school is not an option because of the
insurance liability problems. Only last week my insurance rates
went up 50% again. Three years ago I was paying $100.00 a year
for my insurance. This year I will be paying $2,000.00. I think
you can understand that.
The intensity question: There will be no service calls onto the
property for my use at all. I take all of the supplies and I
will remove the trash with my van. There would be occasional
visitors. Perhaps perspective children. Morning and afternoon
by the parents would be there. The safety of the children in a
contained yard area outweighs, I think, the intensity impact of
the cars on the property for a short one-year period. And the
Planning Department itself does recommend the unloading at the
house.
Bicycles are another question. The bulk of the bike
would be going to and from the Middle and the Dayschool.
given you a letter from the principals of those schools.
traffic
I have
School
4
there begins at 8:25 and ends at 3:25. That means that in the
morning they have to be in class and be past our access by 8:25.
School is out by 3:30 and they should be past us, again, at 4:00.
I have asked Chris Smith and Larry Parsons to warn the children
in their schools and to add a note in the Fall Newsletter to the
parents advising them of our presence. Warning letters have
already been sent to my parents. Warning signs should be posted
along the Marolt driveway and on Highway 82. They should be very
heavily painted on the bike path warning bikers of our presence
similar to what they have at the Aspen Club area.
Considering the traffic flows and the young bicyclers, I have
arrived at what I think is the best hours. Children do tend to
be less cautious than adult automobile drivers. I think that the
safest crossover time is no earlier than 8:25 for delivery of my
children and also no earlier than 4:00 to be picked up by the
parents. Considering that the City has asked me to broaden my
program as much as possible to accommodate the full time working
parent. The majority of our children will arrive at 9:00. And
the majority will depart at 4:00. Some will stay until 5:00. I
will also be adding Tuesdays and Thursdays to my program once
again this year. The City has requested that.
The open space element is another issue. The historic use of the
house has been single family residential. Those tenants have had
the responsibility for overseeing and maintaining the Marolt
property. This is an accessory in nature to the open space use.
I have agreed to serve as caretaker too, in the same sense. I
will determine with City staff what our function in that role
will be. We too are accessory in that fashion. Clearly the
public use of the property is encouraged by the new bike path and
the trail onto the property. This includes the bicycle and cross
country skiers. Those too are somewhat active. They are
considerably older. Perhaps they are adults. I realize that our
bicycles have 3 wheels and theirs have 2. Our use of the Marolt
property will provide an opportunity for the little people to be
included as a part of the broader community need. To share in
the enjoyment of this beautiful piece of publicly owned property.
As a residence for a City employee, the public was excluded from
that. It was really a private residence.
The location of the proposed use of the Marolt property
challenges the open space concept of that prope r ty. wi th the
possibility that other uses unrelated to open space might follow.
You might understandably be worried about setting a precedent. I
admit that. But really there is no precedent for this over-
whelming need in Aspen. In any event this application will be
invalid and so will all others on that property before my year is
up. That is assuming that Council has determined the long range
use of the property. Remember this is a one year application.
Council had its first meeting last night to determine the best
long range use of the property. We are not a dead civilization.
5
We are not a monument to the past. Aspen is a dynamic, diverse
community with changing needs. As communities change sometimes
land uses must be reassessed too. Council may decide that the
conceptual assumption in the use of the property must be modified
to meet greater public needs now. The Planning Department
suggests that day care may become a compatible use in the future.
But that is not my purpose here tonight. We are asking for this
use while these decisions are being made with public input.
I have told Council that if the Children's Playshop cannot find
an affordable space to meet, that they will not open in
September. 75% of my Mothers worked last year. At least those
40 children will be without care. When I add my Tuesday and
Thursday schedule there will be more. The parents of those
children are very vulnerable right now. We are two weeks away
from September. That also represents about 75 employees, Mothers
and Dads. That is also involving employers.
There are 3 proposals for the Marolt house. One as a City
employee's residence as a caretaker. My use as a daycare
facility for one year or thirdly to demolish it. You must decide
if my application meets the necessary requirements for a
conditional use on a temporary interim one year period. While
Council determines the long range plans for the property.
Welton: Are you going to be looking for a place and what if you
don't find a place in the interim? Then are you going to ask for
another year's extension on this?
Ruth: No. I wish that I knew what I was going to do. But I
think that if you look at the list of properties that I have
investigated, you will see that many of those doors are closed
but some of them are not. Situations change. The situation at
the Meadows could change. There is also the very real
possibility that I may purchase some property.
George Madsen, 931 West Francis: My fellow County Commissioners
gave me a visa to come over to City Hall. We discussed this
issue today. I can't say that all the Commissioners voted on it
but we strongly feel that day care facilities should be offered.
You should know that we provide daycare up at the Community
Center. It is an operation we subsidize. There is some expense
to the public. There is also a good deal of volunteer effort
that goes into it. We also like the idea that City Council said
8:00 to 5:00 and 5 days a week. I should also say we want to see
the Marolt property irrigated occasionally. But the basic thrust
from our end of the County is that we would like to see you
support additional child care facilities.
Joe Wells: John Doremus and I have been working as a sub-
committee on behalf of the Parks Association for the Marolt
property. I don't think the issue as far as we are concerned is
6
not whether there is a daycare need in the community, but whether
the community ought to be participating in finding a solution for
day care problems.
The issue as we see it is one of whether or not this is an
appropriate action for the City to take in light of the City's
own rules and regulations. I see the issue centering on 4 areas.
First of all this issue of temporary verses permanent. The code
does not distinguish between temporary uses and permanent uses.
As far as I can tell the code simply considers this a change in
use whether it be temporary or permanent and is not really
relevant so for as I can tell from the code.
Another issue is the SPA overlay on the site. Historically the
City, particularly in the case of the Meadows, has constantly
taken position that any change in use is not permitted at the
Meadows until an SPA plan is finally adopted for the site. The
City has taken that position for 15 years.
Another issue obviously is how the property was purchased. Its
been raised as an issue as to whether or not the entire Marolt
property was purchased with 6th penney funds or only a portion.
I don't think that there is any question but what this portion of
the site was purchased with 6th penney funds and any change in
use for property purchased with 6th penney funds requires having
an election. That is clear in our opinion from reviewing the 6th
penney legislation.
Finally the traffic issue: You have to go out there a few times
to really understand how dangerous it is. This happens to be the
point at which all bikers must make decisions as to whether or
not they are going to go under the bridge or come out onto the
highway. You have bikers coming onto the trail precisely at this
point. It is very dangerous. I think there was an absence of
very much discussion about the fact that in the morning most of
the traffic will be coming in and making a right hand movement
but in the afternoon those same people want to make a left hand
movement out of the property. And having been in there just a
few times myself, I can tell you it is very difficult to make a
left hand turning movement on account of the bikers coming and
going along the trail and coming out onto the highway.
One of the reasons some of us are so upset is the City's inabil-
ity to establish temporary and then eliminate them. The City has
a dismal record with regard to temporary uses on open space
lands. Witness the snow dump area, the impound lot, and now the
staging area for the electrical undergrounding program which
debatably mayor may not be on 6th penney land. Nonetheless, we
were told that would be abated by the 15th of JUly and it is
still very much in evidence. So some of us are very concerned
about temporary uses becoming permanent.
7
Jon Mulford, 795 Cemetery Lane: I am an attorney and also
Director of the Pitkin County Parks Association. Joe touched on
several issues and I would like to emphasize that it would appear
that due to the source of funding for acquisition of this land,
it would not be legal or proper for you to go ahead and grant any
sort of lease for any period of time unless there was a vote on
the change of use of this property.
As Joe has said temporary uses of City properties and open space
lands tend to become more or less permanent. Mrs. stone's
operation has been in more or less temporary quarters for many
years over at the school and using space which was at the time
not needed. I think that it should have been her responsibility
over the past several years to arrange something permanent and
not wait until this last minute when she has to come to the City
to ask you do something that is probably illegal anyway.
Welton: In response to that I had a long discussion with the
City Attorney today about that question of changing the use. The
City Attorney told me that we are not supposed to make that
decision. That decision is with the City Council. That would
make it quite clear-cut for us. City Council is going to have to
make that decision.
Paul Taddune: This issue has been discussed with the City
Council. The Parks Association wants to make the legal arguments
to the City Council and they are welcome to do so. I have
already discussed these issues with the City Council and I don't
think the proposed use in front of you tonight is illegal. It is
my opinion that it is something that we are talking to City
Council about. I don't want to confuse these proceedings by
arguments by council that are legal in nature.
Jon: I certainly think that if you have an opinion about it that
it is only proper that the Board know what it is. If an election
is required this is a futility to continue with this.
Paul: We wouldn't be here if that was my opinion.
Nick McGrath: The code has very broad standards under con-
ditional use. It is clearly a judgment call. Clearly the use
complies with the zoning code because it is a conditional use.
The second standard on consistency is met because it is a
conditional use in the zone category. The sole real issue under
conditional use is is it compatible or isn't it? If this were
long range, many of us might have some questions about that. But
it is short range, temporary, one year. It is clearly compatible
if you view it as a recreational use. It is not relevant for
today but I have a letter from Wayne Chapman about his view and
the City staff consistent view that it was a recreational use
when they proposed to put this same school in operation in Iselin
8
Park in the City building.
Someone said about a commercial use. Most of us don't view
Ruth's school as a commercial use. Ruth is oper a ting by he r
choice as a Colorado Corporation. I could and probably in about
an hour's worth of work make it a Colorado non-profit corpor-
ation. It is strictly an issue of form over substance with
regard to profit or non-profit in the context of her school.
She has more control of the educational and recreational aspects
of her school by running it the way she does. She is entitled to
do that. There are pre-schools that operate under the Colorado
non-profit corporation act in which their directors are paid more
than Ruth pays herself. So she can become non-profit if that
becomes relevant. But it is not something that we think should
enter into your determination. She is performing a public
service because she is providing a public need. Personally I
think the school district ought to provide preschool education.
But they don't and I have children. Ruth is paying a fair market
rent for the property. If City Council chooses perhaps they
could allocate that for the open space fund. Plus she would be a
caretaker.
Ruth Hanrahan: I have got 2 children and 1 is supposed to go to
Ruth's in the Fall. There is a lot of people here that thought
that everything was covered for the year coming up. Now all of a
sudden we are going into a headspin about what is going to happen
to our kids. My Daughter has been going to Ruth's now for a year
and a half. She has been turned down at Wildwood and Country
Day. There are not enough facilities. I am sure there are a lot
of Moms who are watching kids and charging for it but they are
not licensed care.
Marie Grant, 515 Alta Vista: I moved here a year ago from
California. The second shock to me after the cost of living was
child care. I called everywhere and had to keep my Daughter out.
I still can't get over the tight spot that parents are in. I
made a decision to take a part time job to help with the cost of
living but also to be able to have my Daughter in the kind of
environment that Ruth Stone provides. I feel that Aspen has a
responsibility to all these young families. I am making a
statement about not just about Ruth Stone's one year proposal but
also that you might consider this problem and plan for it.
Tod Stone, 611 Fred Lane: In retrospect had voters known when we
voted on the Marolt property that it was going to be used as a
single family residence for City employees, we might have voted
differently. This is a chance for Aspen to live up to its
reputation as a progressive town to find creative responses to a
community's needs.
Wel ton then introduced into record a letter from Audrey Rinker
9
regarding the unsafe conditions of the Marolt house without a
security fence because of the creek. (Letter is attached to
original minutes)
Sherry Oates: Made a couple of comments but there were so many
children talking at the same time it was impossible to hear her.
Welton asked for further public comment.
closed the public hearing.
There was none so he
Jim Colombo: Regarding the temporary nature of your request--you
said that you do not have any plans for what is going to happen
next year. You also said that you don't have anyplace in mind
for sure. The point being that should you not find somewhere,
would you be asking for an extension of this one year temporary.
Could this temporary turn into a permanent request. And can we
as part of a conditional use, Steve, make it specifically clear
that it is only a one year non-renewable lease.
Paul: From what I have heard the applicant would be willing to
stipulate the one year. Secondly the application in front of you
is for only one year. Thirdly if you decide to approve it, the
record should be clear that it would only be for one year and for
no longer than one year. And that your review would be needed if
it was going to continue beyond the one year. You may indicate
on the record, if you are inclined to approve it, that this is a
unique situation given the day-care predicament.
Welton: We could also say it is one year non-renewable.
Nick: We are perfectly willing to stipulate that. The appli-
cation before you is for one year. We don't want to say that we
would never under any conceivable circumstances reapply.
Supposing the overall process looking at the Marolt master plan,
the City decided that the conditional use was appropriate? We
would not want to be the only applicant who was precluded from
applying.
Jim: I know all the sites you have looked at are in the Aspen
area. Yet you stated that most of your families come from down
valley. Is there any appropr iateness to be looking for a place
down valley rather than putting the children on the highway each
day twice a day?
Ruth: No, because I assume that those are down valley residents
coming up here to jobs. In the school district we now have open
enrollment from Basalt, Carbondale and Snowmass because parents
who work here want to be nearby in case something happens to
their kids during the day.
Jim: We are facing a political problem here in which we as a
City and a County are supporting other cities.
10
Nick: I live here and I deserve some consideration as well. I
don't want to drive down valley with my kids.
Ruth: I did not say they are all from Basalt. I said Snowmass,
Maroon Creek Road, and off of Castle Creek.
Jim: I would with reservations support a one year only lease.
Mari: This is their 31st choice after 8 months of searching. I
am still very concerned that there is going to be even more
pressure next year because then it will look as if we are taking
something away.
Ruth: The school district is only a couple of years away from a
new elementary school. And although they haven't a contract with
me, the new superintendent has asked me if I might like to come
back into the school at that time.
Roger: I understand the community need for this, however, I
don't think there would be any question in anyone's mind that it
would be inappropriate at this time to put a playschool or day-
care center at that location given that access. The access makes
it an incompatible condition use in my mind. But the house is
there and I would prefer calling this an emergency rather than
temporary problem. On an emergency basis I can see the
utilization of it.
What is the Council's liability or the community's liability
going to be when a mother and a child gets into a wreck in that
intersection? There is major problems with getting into that
property and at the very least, signage as the Planning Office
indicated is required. On a right hand turn out of that property
you don't even have visibility to the Cemetery Lane light. All
you can react to is about 3 cars distance which is not a safe
distance. And that is turning right out that property. Left out
of that property would be impossible. And if this goes forward
left turning out of this property should be absolutely forbidden.
Compounding that with the bicycle path I can see hideous problems
to where a rational person should deny this.
Paul: The City has liability in a tremendous number of areas.
Generally when we accept or lease a property we request from the
lessee to indemnify the City from any and all liability. And I
would assume that this would also apply to the operation of this
school.
Dav id: I have to say what conce rns me is the illegal ity of uses
raises a lot of problems with use of open space. With some being
temporary usage. The temporary use of the Marolt property
already, the snow dump, storage of vehicles at the impound lot
and things like that. However because both Roger and Jim said
II
"on an emergency basis" I think we could put something together
that says it is a unique situation and we could take emergency
action on a one year basis.
I think we should take out E pick up/delivery van service and all
that. It just does not function. On F if the school would want
to add some kind of traffic control, some kind of support at that
light area. I prefer no left turn sign. I think the rent should
go to the open space fund.
Welton: Jay, how realistic would it be to provide a temporary
dirt or gravel road such as on Castle Creek that could be allowed
like so many roads that are closed down after a year to reveg-
etate itself?
Jay: To get something that you could maintain through the
wintertime and plow and all of that you would have to do a fair
amount of base construction. Most of those fields are topsoil.
It is feasible of course. It would be at some expense.
Welton: The road going into there now is dirty. And it has
always been dirty with just occasional loads of gravel put on it.
Jasmine: I have the same conce rns that Roge r has with the
accident. There is so much traffic on that bridge to the light
at the intersection there and back and forth into town that I
find it very difficult to allow that kind of access into the
property. Not so much because of the liability because in the
long run if somebody gets killed there I don't think it really
matters who has to pay for it. We are talking about something a
little more important than liability. I don't think this is an
ideal location for a child care center.
The real problem is to what extent any government entity should
be involved in child care whether it is financial subsidy,
supervision or whatever. It is a much bigger problem than is in
our purview as a P&Z to deal with.
What we have to deal with is, is this an appropriate location for
a child care center and I don't think it is. I don't think it is
appropriate in terms of the open space consideration and the
access to it is one of the scariest things I have ever seen. I
really cannot go for it.
Ramona: I think that some of these parents by using their
practical concern for their own children could mitigate that
access problem substantially by always following the right turn
out of the property. I know from personal experience ever the
past 25 years what daycare is in Aspen when it was a lot more
nonexistent when I was raising my 4 children than it is today. I
cannot vote against this proposal. I will vote for it for one
year.
12
I would like to see the County further participate because they
have the Community Center Building which is virtually unutilized
at the moment. I think it behooves them to look at this as a
possible use for daycare rather than for more County offices.
Welton: This is the wrong use for this property. But I see a
clear and present need for the service that you are providing and
I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed emergency
conditional use of the Marolt property from PUD SPA/Exemption
wi th the following conditions: A, the same except that to say
not to exceed one year non-renewable to be inserted. That E be
deleted and that that be changed to the access road to be changed
approximately 100 feet to the west so that it intersects Cemetery
Lane at 90 degrees for a full intersection.
Roger: I would love that road to come out at Cemetery Lane. You
could do two things to that. Number 1, Cemetery light has to be
changed. That would involve Colorado Department of Highways.
Number 2 it tends to identify a permanent access into that
property which I am unwilling to go for at all at this point.
Welton: I threw that out as a suggestion to make that entrance
as safe as possible.
Mari: I want to add a condition that the rent would go to the
open space fund. What always happens with our open space is it
gets used for everything else. This is, to me, the only way the
,- conditional use could be justified--that it is an accessory to
open space services.
Paul: That would be appropr iate advisory to the Council. The
Marolt property is not being maintained as well as it should be.
Revenues from this operation could be set aside so that there are
some maintenance funds. Then you would have some maintenance by
having somebody in it. That is another thing we have been
concerned about, that it would lie unused over the winter time
and that the property would deteriorate.
Mar i: As much as I appreciate the community need, I could not
vote for this unless I felt that in some way it benef itted the
open space focus that it was bought for.
David: As a condition I would like to see that any types of
improvement such as fences be removed and areas such as sandboxes
revegetated at the end of this one year period by these people.
We also need to have that property irrigated. I don't know if we
can make this a condition but it certainly needs to be done.
MOTION
Rog e r :
In spi te of be t ter judgement I move to appr ove the
13
emergency temporary conditional and PUD/SPA exemption for
children's playshop use of the Marolt house. In spite of good
judgment I would indicate that it really does not belong there
but given the emergency circumstances for temporary use can be
tolerable. Subject to the following conditions: A The same as
Planning office memo dated August 11, 1987 with the addition of
time period not to exceed one year non-renewable. B is the same.
C is the same. D will remain the same. E that any improvements
by the Children's Playshop will be removed and revegetated at the
option or approval of the Parks Department at the end of the
lease. F to remain the same. G The Parks Department come up
with a plan with the applicant for the maintenance and irrigation
of that property.
An addition to F is that the applicant be responsible in educat-
ing its clients who access the property as to the proper ingress
and egress of the property.
Jasmine: We have all been concerned about setting precedence
with this. This is obviously a very emotional issue for every-
body. This is something that should be discussed in a much
broader capacity in a much more far-reaching way by people other
than the Planning and Building Commission and we should not be
pushed into making what I think are very bad decisions because of
the emergency situation because the community as a whole has
failed to deal with this problem. This is yet another example of
something that has gotten to an emergency state and then shoved
onto us. I have personal problems with that access. I can't vote
for it.
Welton: I have to agree with Jasmine. That entrance is just a
disaster looking for a time to happen. If the entrance was
anywhere else, I would have much less problems with it. I look
at it every day from my living room window every day and I know
it is going to be a disaster and unless it is relocated to some
other location, I am going to have to vote no.
Roger: That is why I put into my motion "in spite of better
judgment". But at the same time I have to agree with Jasmine and
Wel ton as far as the access--it is a time bomb just looking for
the last tick. I don't like it one bit.
Mari: Another resolution I had in mind is that instead of just
reacting to emergencies, the time is long overdue for us to deal
with all these uses that nobody has a place for. I am talking
about the snow dump, the impound lot--maybe part of Marolt should
be zoned for such uses and then sold. I am ti red of hav ing to
react to emergencies that go on for years and years.
Ramona: The City of Aspen specializes in crises management. We
had a proposal last night for the MAA for a dorm which would also
be used for faculty practice rooms and other practice rooms. It
14
is possible that a part of that area could be planned in such a
manner that it would be used for the music dorms during the
summer and then in the Fall and Winter that this would be another
plan that would fit into that. This would be across from Castle
Ridge. We had a very good meeting on the Marolt property last
night with the Council so I think that this one year thing may
lead to something that is more realistic both for the day care
center as well as the rest of the City's problems.
David: Originally when I heard about this, I was totally against
it. All of us have been talking about more and more planning on
P&Z. All we ever seem to do is zoning and zoning. If we could
do some more planning maybe we could alleviate some of the
problems.
Jim: I think that there is another avenue that has not been
touched as far as providing for this function in the community.
That is there is a very specific group of people who are directly
and immediately impacted by it. Those people cOllectively have a
great deal of power. This is a private industry and those people
collectively would provide their own building--that burden does
not have to be on you, Ruth, alone but collectively the parents
who have a vested interest in this could get together collect-
ively as a co-op, purchase a site or building. And operate it in
such a way.
Welton then asked for a vote. Those in favor were Ramona, Mari,
Roger and Jim with Jasmine and Welton against.
MOTION
Roger: I move to have the planning Office draft a resolution to
City Council which is both to indicate our concerns about this
enti re thing. It should also include our recommendations as to
where the rent should go as far as the open space fund for the
maintenance of the Marolt property. And we should indicate our
reservations concerning the potentially disastrous access to the
property.
Mari seconded the motion.
Jasmine: Would you also add that before City Council goes around
portioning out open space even on an interim basis, we would like
to discuss it with them.
Roger: Please include Jasmine's amendment to the motion.
Mari seconded the amendment with all in favor.
PITKIN CENTER GMP AMENDMENT
Welton open the public hearing.
15
Steve: This is a request for GMP amendment to eliminate the
dumbwaiter. When you scored this project they said if they had a
restaurant on the second floor, they would either have a dumb-
waiter or a service elevator. At this time they have request to
eliminate the dumbwaiter.
The situation of the restaurant is that it is fairly small. It
would have 44 seats. The applicants say that they are likely to
have 2 seatings. There is access to the upstairs off the alley
that is shared by residential residents. They have another
access as well.
The Engineering Department was somewhat ambivalent. They were
not very concerned about the impact of not having a dumbwaiter
with regard to alley impacts or how the building function. The
fire marshal was also not concerned from his point of view.
Rocky Whitford of the Police Department was mainly concerned
about the alley congestion that this would contribute to. He did
recommend that P&Z not delete this.
I felt that it was necessary to get a little more input so I
spoke with a food service employee from Sysco Nobel. His point
of view is that dumbwaiters are really great and that they do
reduce the alley congestion time. However when we discussed the
relative size of the restaurant and what he considered the
deliveries likely to be, he did not continue to say that it was
necessary for this type of restaurant.
We thought it was a hard call. But we did recommend that given
that it is not really an essential and that a lot of other
aspects of the building compensate for restaurant food delivery
and that the restaurant be limited to seating 44 people, we would
recommend in favor of this and recommend that P&Z affirm the
original score.
Roger: To me a dumbwaiter is appropriate for a small restaurant.
A service elevator is appropriate for a large restaurant on the
second floor. I get a little irritated when applicants will
promise things on GMP and get the thing through, get the building
half built then say "oh by the way we don't think it is actually
necessary" in order to break away from that original commitment.
So I have a real problem with dropping this commitment.
We lost a service elevator for what is now Gordon's because of
different ownership of that restaurant. When that comes up I am
going to still be as adamant as I am about this. If we are going
to have restaurants on other than the surface floor, we have to
have reasonable service access so that the guy isn't literally
breaking his back pulling a truck up a stair. Most stairwells
are not wide enough to have someone conveniently pass going down
as someone is coming up with a truck. So I am adamant about the
16
requirement of proper service to restaurants. As far as I am
concerned if the building owner wants a restaurant up there then
he should provide proper service to it. And that includes at
least for a small restaurant, a dumbwaiter.
Jasmine: We get into in these cases where the applicant is not
always the lessee of the space in question. The applicant who
submitted the GMP proposal is the guy who built the building.
This applicant before us is somebody who is leasing the restaur-
ant space with the approval of the owners. The actual burden of
the construction of the dumbwaiter should be on the original
applicant. If the person who put up the building was supposed to
put in a dumbwaiter, why is that person not before us?
Steve: We have a letter from Jim Martin who is one of the
members of the partnership saying that they support the appli-
cation.
Jasmine: The problem is the applicant who is the developer makes
a representation as to what is going to happen with the building.
Then leases the space to somebody else who comes up with these
problems.
Jim: That is something that is not even our problem. He
represents the owner. This is the owner as far as we are
concerned.
Jasmine: I don't think that is clear and that has a lot to do
with the scoring of the application.
Jim: But as far as we are concerned I think we should consider
this to be the owner in front of us right here.
Walt: One thing you mentioned as far as the stairs and someone
coming down--there are two separate accesses for the apartments
above. It is not as i f it is the only access. There are 2
separate stairs. So there is no problem as far as two people
using it at the same time. The idea behind it was the size we
are, the amount of deliveries that we would have. Timewise it is
the same involved as far as using a dumbwaiter. Dumbwaiters are
not fast as far as carrying up the equipment. They have to be
loaded then unloaded before they can be used again.
As far as cleanliness of the stair, we will take full responsi-
bility in keeping that clean and neat at all times. The use of
the dumbwaiter is not applicable for us. It is not a value for
us as a restaurant on the second floor. We would be open to
doing this subject to review later down the road if you want to.
Another possibility we could look into would be the potential of
putting the walk-in refrigerator on the ground level. But the
dumbwaiter really doesn't work for the size of the restaurant
that we are doing. The price is $15,000.00 and with the labor it
17
comes to $17,000.00.
Jim: The reasons you don't want it is that you don't think it
functions any better than stai rway systems for you and tha tit
takes up additional space in the restaurant and the financial
considera tions?
David: I have to agree with Roger and Jasmine in that here is
GMP application that says something and then we get stuck down
the road every time. The guy who was competing says "I'll do
this" and these little things fall through all the time.
Welton: I agree with Roger and Jasmine and feel that the burden
should not be on the lease holde r. It should be on the owne r.
And the owner should bear the burden of his representations.
Five years down the road you may want to expand.
Walt: If we were to require more seats we would gladly put in a
dumbwaiter because then it would be necessary. We have no
problem doing it if we are able to expand our physical limit at
the restaurant. At that time we would have no problem with
putting in a dumbwaiter because then you have a very different
load being brought into the restaurant. Then it becomes very
necessary because you have people coming up every day or every 3
days and they are really packed. I worked at Gordon's. I saw
the guys lugging things upstairs. I lugged things upstairs
myself. I know what is involved with that. The size and
capacity that we are looking at is on a much different scale.
Roger: Do you have a dry goods receiving area on the ground
level?
Walt: We would store the dry goods on the second floor.
MOTION
Roger: I move to deny.
Jim: The problem is when we make these approvals there are
representations by the owner. We have no capacity to prevent
that owner from putting the burden of cost on the lessee. I
could see for small restaurant owners $17,000.00 is a real
hardship. But for the builder of that building, it was not
anywhere near the hardship. We have no authority to legally
require him to provide that as part of the building shell and not
be part of the lessee's improvement. The real problem that
happens is that we end up with a crises situation again. The
lessee has to put $27,000.00 into something going as an
$80,000.00 project where the other guy is putting up a 2 million
dollar building and how much is that going to effect him? The
representation was by the guy putting up the building.
18
-
Roger: I agree. To me it is a business decision on the part of
the renter if the overall cost is worth it. Yes, the renter pays
for it eventually but the question is a matter of timing at this
point. Does he pay for it now in one lump sum or does he pay for
it through the rental price of the space. Logically if the owner
wants to rent that space for a restaurant that is something he
has to have on the property for that restaurant and that is put
in the rental price of the space.
Jim: Are you responsible for the installation of this dumb-
waiter?
Walt: To my knowledge I am. When we were originally looking at
it we were to it was required. Then we were told it was not
required. Then we found out when we came to see Steve about this
that it was required.
Jim: If you were told it was not required, I think it was a
misrepresentation by the owner to you.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend denial of the request to delete the
dumbwaiter of the service to the second floor restaurant as
represented in Pitkin Center GMP. Comments: #1. It was clear
to the owner/applicant at the time of the GMP that if a
restaurant was going to occur off the ground floor level that a
dumbwaiter or service elevator would be required. Apparently the
GMP owner/applicant understood that and is apparently trying to
shift the economic burden of the installation of that to the
leaseholder. It is our opinion that the installation of the
dumbwaiter is not the responsibility of the leaseholder but the
original GMP owner/applicant because it was part of the GMP
building structure and not part of interior improvements.
Leaseholders are responsible for interior improvements not the
structure of the building. The dumbwaiter is essential for the
operation of off-ground level restaurant.
Mari Peyton seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jim: I think that in the future when we make these type of
requirements that we make it specifically clear that it is part
of the structure of the building itself and not part of the
interior improvements.
FARVER STREAM MARGIN REVIEW/PLAT AMENDMENT
Glenn Horn: This person wants to put a deck on her Aspen Club
Condo. There really are no issues on this. You are making the
final decision on the stream margin review. We are recommending
your approval of the Farver Stream Margin Review and recommend
that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council
19
approval of the subdivision exception request for the minor plat
amendment.
MOTION
Roger: I move approve the Farver Stream Margin Review and
recommend to City Council approval of the subdivision exception
request for the minor plat amendment.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Roger: I amend my motion to add that the stream margin approval
be conditioned upon the applicant's commitment that excavation
dirt will not be deposited in the river.
Jasmine amended her second of the motion.
All members voted in favor of the motion.
GOLDENSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Steve: The Engineering Department has had a serious concern with
regard to the potential for subsidence because the Smuggler Mine
is in the area and has potentially a variety of tunnels under-
neath. They have done studies and recommend that they design a
foundation that has some flexibility in it when it comes to weak
areas.
The Engineering Department was satisfied with that approach. The
other aspect brought up was the roof drainage and drywells so
that they wont have water channelized coming down the hillside.
The Fire Marshal talked to the architect about fire sprinklers.
He suggested the use of sprinklers. He is not recommending it as
a condition of approval but does feel for their own benefit they
should consider that.
Both the Engineering and Planning Office were concerned about the
utility ditches, revegetation of those swaths that will come down
the hillside. The applicant's plan seems to work. It can be
revegetated. We suggest native shrubs removed from the building
site be replanted there.
We have discussed the visual impacts. We think they are accept-
able because it is on a bence and set back. We also ask that
natural color building materials be utilized. Our recommendation
is for approval subject to some conditions.
Graeme Means: We would like to discuss #2 and #3. #2 is more of
a clarification type of thing. It says the house shall be
constructed in the proposed location having wood siding and metal
or shake roofing, all earthtones in color. In our meeting I
20
suggest that asphalt roofing might be something we might have to
look at. The Planning Office thought that would be OK at that
time. If earthtone means brown then we do have a problem in the
sense.
Jasmine: That condition I looked at myself. I assumed that when
you said metal, what you were trying avoid was glare. I really
hesi tate getting into this thing about colors. I think what we
are trying to say is that the roof should be unobtrusive and not
ref lecti ve.
David: We also don't want the blue as at the Centennial.
Steve: Don't you think earthtone give enough variation.
Graeme: It is a difficult thing, we have not decided on a color.
Roger: If you have asphalt shingles you won't be dropping the
snow off very quickly.
Graeme: We hope not to use asphalt shingles but we would like to
have that option budget wise in case we need it.
Wel ton: So change #2 to metal, asphalt or shake roof ing of a
non-glaring color.
Jasmine: I don't think you should have to say earthtones.
David: I want to put in non-reflective roof surface.
think we have any right to direct colors.
I don't
Welton: I think unobtrusive and non-reflective.
Graeme: #3 they are suggesting that roof drains be installed on
the west side of the roof to keep erosion and such down. The
problem we have with this is that those roofs are facing a 15%
north of west. Also they are shaded to a certain degree. I just
don't think they are going to work. I think they are going to
falloff with the ice weight and could create problems with the
roof because of that shading and I just don't think it is wise to
put a roof drain on a northwest facing roof. Plus I feel that
there is a level patio going out from where the roof dr ips and
there is going to be a terrace coming out from the building so
this roof is dripping along here and we feel that a footer drain
along here will handle the problem.
Welton: You have provided a swail with gravel below grade and
you could do flagstones with not an impervious surface or a
surface with area drains to drain into 55 gallon oil drums. That
is something to keep the drainage on site.
Graeme: That is something we can do and eliminate gutters.
21
Welton: Surface drains shall be installed on the west side below
the west sloping roof and runoff shall be diverted to drywells or
other on-site subsurface drainage.
Graeme: How would you like us to show that on the plan.
Welton: Just in your details. Indicate drywells or if it is
going to be a concrete surface the area drainage goes into a
drywell of 300 gallon capacity or 3,000 gallons or whatever you
figure your drainage to need.
Roge r: I move to appr ove the Goldenson 8040 Greenline Rev iew
building a single family house on Lot 7, Sunny Park North
Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
#1 being the same as Planning Office memo dated August 13, 1987.
#2 being the same with the addition of after metal adding
asphalt, or shake roofing, all unobtrusive and non-reflecting in
color. #3 the same with the exception of the first word change
from roof to surface installed on the west edge below to swails
or area drains leading to drywells or subsurface located far
enough away etc continuing with the memo. #4, 5 and 6 to remain
in tact.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:25 pm.
Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk
22