Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890110 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING (, ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 10. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and welton Anderson. Jim Colombo was absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Michael: Last night I was at City Council meeting and all of a sudden City Council now has got themselves involved in the library design and possibly into the parking structure insofar as whether to put employee housing on top of the parking structure. They are having a special meeting on Wednesday the 18th to which we are invited. The point is I just wonder where they whole process that we have been through. like they never knew there was going to parking structure. Roger: I received a flyer in the ARA newsletter today concerning a RFTA airport shuttle service. I know it is free in town up to Cemetery Lane. However they start charging west of the Cemetery Lane. In their little map it is Aspen Cross Country Center Golf Course and, of course, neglecting the fact that that is an employee housing complex right now. I am really most upset that the employee housing complex is not being serviced by free shuttle service. have been through this Last night they acted be a library or even a Maybe they can't do it for free. I think we should try to get RFTA to come up with some method of giving those people an identification card for $5.00 a year which would give them free service both on that airport route and the down valley route. The down valley routes are the only other supporting transportation service to that facility. That is not riding the whole route free but basically from the employee housing complex to the downtown area. Jasmine: I think it would be essential to get P&Z to work on this. Obviously, nobody is ever going to let us build employee housing anywhere where people don't have to take buses. The least we can do is make sure that there is bus service for them. Bruce: The bus runs clear out to Highlands and the hospital. It is no further to go to the airport so I don't see their justification in charging for it. Roger: I think for employee housing type thing, airport service PZMl.IO.89 should be given that type of idea as well to use the down valley service. Michael: I think we should expand it to include the Airport Business Center. Why should people there be encouraged to take their cars? Let's encourage them to leave their cars and take the bus. Mari: I was aware that there was an airport shuttle but I had no idea that it stopped along the way. And I think that we should let them know that their ridership would probably go up a lot if people knew. If I had known that I would have used it myself. They should publicize the fact that you can get off in between. MOTION Roger: I move that Tom Baker pass on the RFTA that we would like to see basically a pass type service servicing the employee housing complex at the Golf Course and the Airport Business Center for employees using a pass they could buy for $5.00 a year as an example that allows them to ride the busses "for free" as well as advertise the fact that it is a shuttle route and not just a destination/airport, Rubey Park service. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS WESSON BUILDING Alan: You scored the Wesson Building back in 1986 for GMQS. You granted 2,500sqft at that point in time. The property is basically under contract to Mack Cunningham. He has been working with our staff for about 2 months going through the HPC process to finalize the design which came to you as the conceptual design which you approved under Growth Management Process. Mack has just received final approval from HPC for this design. There was some language in the P&Z approval where you talked about giving the HPC final authority on the design approval. The applicant was under the impression that the language in that condition meant that the P&Z signed off on all design changes to the building. Normally that would be the case. The obvious case here is that we have a building which has totally changed. The HPC is very satisfied with the new design and staff is quite satisfied with the new design. The question is whether a re-scoring through the Growth Management Quota System Amendment Process is or is not appropriate at this point in time. 2 PZMl.IO.89 staff feels it would do well in the re-scoring process. You should also know that Mack is proposing to change the housing formula which was previously cash-in-lieu and on-site to totally on-site. This is another improvement--a good idea. There is no GMQS amendment application in our office at this point in time. Mack is under a contract deadline--a very serious contract deadline with a lot of money at stake--has gotten full HPC approval and thinks that he has received all of the approvals that he needs to on this new design and is asking the P&Z to direct me as the Planning Director to determine that this is what we would call minor amendment to a prior approval which the staff can sign off on. After discussion on this matter: MOTION Roger: I make a motion to instruct the Planning Office to sign off on these architectural changes to the Wesson Building with the following conditions: 1. They must submit an landscaping\site plan. 2. All other commitments beyond the changes to architecture and housing remain the same. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. This is a unique circumstance and members of the P&Z want it noted in the record that this is a one-time happening. MOUNTAIN BOUSE LODGE GMOS PUBLIC BEARING welton stepped down from this hearing because of a possible conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing. Alan made presentation. (attached in record) Alan: A month ago you tabled the application for a chance for the applicant to go back and come in with a reduced version of the proposal. Specifically you wanted a reduction in the number of rooms. You also wanted Engineering to look at a number of features in terms of parking spaces, turning radius and drainage. 3 PZMl.IO.89 The applicant has submitted a new site plan. The guest room count has been reduced from 18 to 12. Since there are 11 guest roms now on the property the proposal is now for a total lodge of 23 rooms. There has been 280sqft increase on the on-site open space. The FAR has been reduced by 750sqft. The total FAR proposal is now 11,250 on the 12,000sqft site which is within the 1 to 1 allowed in the LP zone district. We have been most interested in seeing the restaurant be deleted from the project. We really felt that that was the most incompatible portion of this development and it has been deleted. The room count reduction is also important because they have not reduced the parking along with it so whereas before we had 18 rooms plus 4 employee rooms and only 14 spaces--now we have got 12 rooms and 4 employee rooms and 14 parking spaces. So now we have got adequate parking spaces for the free market development and there is a provision in the code that allows you to reduce the parking requirement for employee housing. As before we are recommending approval. We feel that the City made a strong commitment to the LP lodges 5 years ago when we got into the rezoning program and zoned these lodges to use. We recognized that zoning to allow small additions might be necessary. To us now this 12 unit expansion is really in the right scale to be reasonable for the neighborhood. We recognize that as an RMF property. Someone could come in and, through Growth Management, build 1 to 1 on the adjacent site and build mUlti-family units. We think it is of more benefit to the community to have small lodge in that neighborhood than it is to have yet another mUlti-family type of a use or a large duplex. So we certainly support the rezoning. Roger: I notice that now the dumpsters are now out in the alley right-of-way and as you drive down the alley they are out on the driving side of the telephone poles. So that is something that we should try and minimize and I do notice that they have a trash area. Is this going to be a paved parking area that a wheeled dumpster will be able to be trundled out on? It will have to be an area that will have to be cleared for the trash to be wheeled. Certainly the trash access to the alley should be paved. As far as the rest of the parking area, it would be better to be paved but I don't know that it should be a requirement. Alan: In condition 3 we are requiring that the trash needs to be accommodated on-site. That is getting it out of the alley right- of-way. We need to ver ify that the proper amount of trash 4 PZMl.IO.89 storage is being provided by contacting BFI and that would be a requirement before City Council reviews it for rezoning. Michael: I am concerned about the fact that the rezoning application in effect puts a non-conforming use into a residential neighborhood. The residents of this neighborhood don't seem particularly thrilled by this and we are now rezoning to expand that. what use could the property be made under the RMF? When you say multi-family, how many multi-family units would go there where now we are putting 12 lodge units on that site? Alan: You could do 7 studios. You could do 2 3-bedrooms and a 1 bedroom. Those requirements if the project is 50% multi-family essentially double and if the project is 100% affordable housing it goes up even further. Depending on whether it were totally free market or actually affordable housing project you could approach the 12 units certainly. John Wening, applicant: After the last meeting it became pretty obvious that we had not taken into account opinions and concerns of our neighbors. So what we have done is having talked to our neighbors and try to come up with something that would be the best for everybody. We eliminated once and for all and forever the idea of having a restaurant on this property. We reduced the square footage by 10%. We reduced the height of the building 2 to 3 feet. We doubled the setback on the west side of the building and we increased our open space from 35 to nearly 40%. We now have parking space for each new room plus 2 more for employee housing. We have also changed the overall feeling of it to a more residential and more victorian by adding nice siding and trim. PUBLIC COMMENTS Alan: Presented message regarding phone call from Dwight Lieb stating that he is strongly, vehemently protesting this project. (attached in record) Lieb's concerns were that it would result in a change of character in the neighborhood, and that there is a lack of adequate parking and that the parking allotments are inaccurate. Tom Iacona, East Hopkins: I went over and looked at the project the other day. I do appreciate what they have done as far as reducing the size of it. They have taken the restaurant out of it. Everything is a lot more acceptable to me now. I have one 5 PZMl.IO.89 problem. is angle there is sidewalk put in a That is the parking on Hopkins street. Right now there parking in the I-block section of parallel parking and no sidewalk there. The cars are parked across where a should be. Are you going to require that the property sidewalk and maintain it? Alan: Yes, we are--on Hopkins. Tom: Then you aren't going to have anywhere near as many parking spaces as they are saying. John: That would be up to the Engineering Dept. and we will work with them. Tom: There is a lot less parking there than is being represented. When it goes back to putting a sidewalk in and that parking becomes parallel which is what everything else in that whole neighborhood is, you are not going to have as many parking spaces as is being represented. Other than that I like what they have done with scaling it down and I think it would be OK for the neighborhood. Alan: I would be happy to check with the Engineering Dept to see if that angle parking could be maintained with the sidewalk going in. We have always felt that while the 1 to 1 requirement is important particularly for lodges that don't have existing parking. It is hard to imagine that it is going to be 100% of the units who will have cars. So it may balance off the losing some of the parking along Hopkins but providing 1 to 1 on the alley. Mari: Especially when our official ratio is now .7. Marcus Morton, owner of unit in the pioneer Building right next door to Mountain House: My main concern is the parking in the alleyway. All it takes is one car and you can't get through there especially in the winter time. Somebody else will get stuck in a rut. Then there is no way to get in or out. This has become an increasing problem since they have remodeled. That did bring in more people and it has been a problem with people parking here overnight. Trash has also been a problem with dogs that run loose and getting in. Sometimes the whole alleyway is just nothing but trash. I can't see how you are going to put in anywhere near the parking to accommodate the additional people without putting real stress 6 PZMl.10.89 on the other folks who live in that neighborhood and who use that alleyway. Wayne Harris: I live across the street. We have seen the proposed changes. John runs a nice operation there. I am very much in favor of small lodges. There are a couple of points here. This is basically a residential neighborhood. I am not sure we want to increase the number of non-residents in that area. I don't think the parking problem is going to be solved by adding 12 spaces back there. That is more than just a normal alleyway. There is a lot of foot traffic with people walking back and forth to their jobs and people coming home at night. I am also concerned about the general impact on the neighborhood of twice the size of the lodge. We just don't want to live across the street from a bigger hotel. This is a neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. I think this would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Marty Broden, representing Centennial Park: John has done a really nice job going around to the people of the neighborhood. I polled most of the people who live in Centennial and they are basically against the idea of a hotel in the neighborhood. My only objection is that I have a hard time believing that this is going to benefit the neighborhood at all. A neighborhood is what we are really talking about here. My final opinion is that I really don't feel comfortable with doubling the size of the lodge that is there. That is the opinion of the other 9 folks who live in my building. There was no further public comment. Graeme: what is the City's obligation in terms of plowing the alleys? If there is going to be a trend towards putting a lot more parking in the alleys then they are going to need to be taken care of better so that it works. There is a proposed 14 spaces in that alley but if the alley is not plowed then there are no spaces there. Jasmine: This would be a worthwhile comment to make to the City Council. It is a point well taken. I share Mickey's concerns which I think really have to do more with the rezoning than the GMP application itself. I think what the question really comes down to is not necessarily how this project scores in growth management but whether it is a good idea to allow the rezoning to have an expanded lodge use there which is perceived as being a community benefit but which according to 7 PZMl.10.89 the neighbors is obviously not that much of a benefit as far as the neighborhood is concerned. We have two worthwhile causes that are in conflict with each other. It seems to me though that that is more of the rezoning part of the hearing and perhaps we should go through the GMP scoring anyway. Alan: You are right. In this case you have 2 very independent very key decisions to make. They ought to stand separate in your mind. The score from our recommendation--the rezoning you have got to make the decision based on the neighborhood issues vs. the City-wide short-term inventory issues that staff has come out on the side of expanding the hotel. The neighborhood is coming out very clearly saying it is inappropriate. MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we accept the Planning Office scoring. I am not in favor of the rezoning but the scoring is fine and the project is fine and the applicants have certainly made a major effort to make the neighborhood happy. This is one of the hard decisions you have to make sometime but I think we've got the 2 lofty goals of the neighborhood and I think the neighborhood should take precedence and I think the people who live there should be given favorable decision over the needs of the community for more lodge housing. I think there are other places we can put lodges. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. REZONING RBOUEST Alan: Comments start on page 8 of the memorandum. record) (attached in You have heard from the neighborhood. All were very well spoken. John: When we talk of a limited expansion, we are only talking 12 rooms here. 12 rooms on 7,500sqft as opposed to lIon 4,500sqft. I think that does meet the appropriateness of the intent of our lodge preservation attempts in this town. When we are talking about the neighborhood being opposed it is a mix of 50-50. Everyone is having a hard decision. It is not the neighbors against this. It is some very well spoken concerns. We have tried to mitigate all the negative impacts. Across the street from us each floor of the Queen victoria has more bedrooms than ours. 8 PZMl.IO .89 Mari: When I was Ii stening to the neighborhood comments I had the feeling that they were comparing the lodge to leaving things as they are as opposed to having an expanded small lodge compared to what might be there otherwise. I wonder if the neighbors would be go there if thi s lodge does not. stay just the way it is. Alan: Clearly the trend in the area has been to do single family or duplex type of development. The FAR is 4,000sqft that is allowed in a single family or duplex. If somebody wanted to go through the Growth Management and compete you could certainly come in with a mUlti-family project. with a 50-50 employee housing free market project, you could easily get 10 to 12 rooms on that site. just as happy with what might I don't think it is going to Mari: My decision is going to be based on the fact that you can say it is a 100% expansion but 100% of 11 rooms is not nearly as much as 100% of 70 rooms. I am in the tourist business and I am very concerned about the disappearance from Aspen of small affordable lodges. I under stand the neighborhood concerns. But I feel that those concerns would be almost the same no matter what happens to that property given the market forces. So I am leaning toward preserving the small lodge. Roger: I agree with MarL A 20 room lodge is not a big lodge. I do understand the neighborhood's concerns but what would their concerns be if a mUlti-family project there. If you think you have a parking problem now think what that would be if a 2 million dollar duplex were there and that is certainly not what I would consider an asset to the neighborhood. Basically my goal is mitigating the neighborhood's concerns as much as possible because the alternatives would be as bad if not worse. Graeme: I am tending in the same direction. We have heard a lot less neighborly criticism of the project than we did the last time. Looking at the neighborhood, there are some multi-type units that don't, to me, make this feel too out of scale. But if there is any way to make sure these parking spaces work in the winter, that should be done. If it is the City's decision to eliminate the diagonal parking out front, that is not the applicant's fault. So I don't hold that against them. Bruce: One of the neighbors had raised the point that doubling the size even though it is on to 7,500sqft seems more than a 9 PZMl.IO.89 limited expansion under the definitions given in the LP zone. My concern is whether we are somehow subverting what the code was intended to do with the LP zone. I am in favor of the lodge being able to expand. It may mean the difference in survival. John: We used to have 36 single beds plus 3 apartments for employees on that site. So what we are doing now in total will have less impact than what we used to have there when it was a dormitory lodge. Alan: One of the things that we definitely anticipated when we created the LP zone was that some of the lodges might have the opportunity to buy land next door. I agree with the other Commission members who correctly characterized that there is no community benefit whatsoever in building another duplex in that neighborhood. So, for me, on balance another 11 or 12 rooms is reasonable. I think that given the development patterns in this community we have to take a little bit further act that we might normally to insure that these kinds of facilities stay in the community. I would hate for Aspen to be known for only Little Nell's and Aspen Squares. I don't think that is in the community's best interest. Michael: I think it is wrong that we would sit here and decide what is best for that neighborhood. I think the neighborhood people who live there are certainly capable of making a decision. My vote tonight has got to be based upon what I am hearing from the people who are here. It is their neighborhood and if they are not in favor of a lodge then I don't think we should be sticking lofty community goals in their neighborhood. If we want to do that some place, there are lodge districts in town. Some of the computations that I have heard tonight are just that. That is all they are--just mathematical computations. If you expand a lodge by more than 100% I don't see that as a limited addition. Under any legal definition or any rational definition over 100% can't be limited. Bill Dunaway: As an owner of one of the Gavilon units I would like to point out that when the Gavilon was built and other apartment houses in the area, they effectively destroyed the single family neighborhood so the change on the neighborhood of this revised application isn't that owner's. Jasmine: I was very concerned with the previous proposal. I had a lot of discomfort with, and still do, the limited expansion. I agree that the number of rooms itself is very small but doubling 10 PZMl.IO .89 the size is not as bad as the original request which seemed to me to be totally out of scale with the neighborhood. I know the parking problem is really horrendous. That is the worst area in the City as far as parking is concerned. But the kind of buildings that were put up that you were able to buy into and that you, as locals, could afford to live in are not going to be built anymore ever again. You do have to consider what your alternatives are. Mari pointed out, and I agree, staying the way it is is not an option. And we do have a responsibility to try to think of what we think is the best redevelopment proposal. I have to say though that unless they do something about the parking, I cannot approve this. I really do not think the parking has been adequately addressed. To me, that would make the difference between my agreeing to approving the rezoning or not approving. Bruce: This time of year less than 25% of the guests have a car. ?: We have that same thing at the Mountain Challet. We have put in some parking down in the carriage house just below Bruce. We have got room for 12 cars down there and it is rare to have it full and we have got 48 rooms at our place. So I think what has been provided there is going to more than take care of the needs of this lodge plus more. I don't see how you can say this project is the one that is causing the parking problem and should have to provide for all the problem. Jasmine: But when you have applied for rezoning and you are trying to take into account what is going on in the neighborhood and neighborhood compatibility, it seems obvious that a lodge use when you are adding 11 or 12 rooms, there are additional impacts on the neighborhood. And I don't think it is necessarily out of line to ask that as part of your obligation in order to get this rezoning that you go beyond mere mitigation of your own impact in a situation like that. John: needs visit I can assure that we will take care of all our parking on site because we don't have that many people come and who have their cars with them. Gary Moore: I just put a duplex in there last winter and I had to provide parking spaces for every bedroom. I would like to know why they would be an exception to that rule. All of our parking is off the street. II PZMl.10.89 I also don't see how anyone can say that a duplex or a single family home on that corner would be more impact than what is being proposed. Bruce: The first thing we have to remember is that we have a lodge there now. So that neighborhood includes a lodge use and when we make a decision about whether to expand it or not we have to determine whether they have done all that they can do to mitigate the impact of that expansion. If the expansion fits within the LP definition of "limited" and I am satisfied by Alan that perhaps it does. I also am satisfied that they have done whatever they can do to mitigate the impacts. They have no assigned parking to the Mountain House now. It is street parking even though they pull in at an angle. They are adding 14 assigned places. MOTION Bruce: I would like to make a motion that we approve the zoning change to LP with the condition that we advise Engineering and City Council that we would like the area along Hopkins to be angle parking and the sidewalk moved back to accommodate more parking. Roger seconded the motion with a request to include that it is Block 32, Lots A, B and half of C for a legal description. Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Bruce, yes, Michael, no, Mari, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. GMQS ALLOTMENT Alan: You need to act on the increase in the FAR, recommending to the Council the exemption of the employee units and the request of reduction of parking. The FAR special review request involves the same basic issue as the rezoning. It is a comparability question which you have been discussing. It is the opportunity that you have to attach conditions to your approval beyond the one the applicant voluntarily agreed to on the parking. Staff has suggested 6 conditions. (attached in record) To begin the discussion I have heard several more mentioned tonight. 12 PZMl.IO.89 1. The dining area. The applicant has already agreed to stipulate that this is for breakfast only rather than full breakfast, lunch and dinner. 2. We need language suggesting that the appl icant provide sidewalk on Hopkins Street designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Dept. in order to accommodate parking. A point was made here from someone in the audience regarding the requirement of curbs. If that was not a representation we will make sure it becomes a requirement. John: The City suggested that in 1990 they are going to be re- grading of West End Street. Can we work with them and maybe do that when we build? Jasmine: It would seem appropriate to have the applicant work in conjunction with the City's work on the street. 3. Trash and utility. We got a letter from BPI. Roger: In that we should include that the area between the trash area and the alley should be paved in order to roll the trash dumpster out to the alley. The rest of the Commissioners were in agreement that paving only the trash area was sufficient. 4. Requirement by the applicant based on a growth management commitment that they make cash contribution to the Sanitation District which they receive points for. 5. Regarding relocation of the log house: The applicant has a concern about this one. We would like to see this house not be demolished but be relocated. We don't expect the applicant to go out and buy a piece of property and make the relocation happen. what we want is that they advertise the house being available. We just don't want to see this lost and if the applicant is not able to do that this project just doesn't go forward. John: As far as putting an add in the paper--if the City knows of anyone who would like it we would even go as far as what it would cost us to tear it down. We will donate to help move it. But I am older than that building. You can't call it historic. Michael: Alan are you saying that if they can't find somebody to take it, they can't build the project? Alan: Until they can find someplace to move it, that is correct. 13 PZMl.IO .89 Michael: I am not in favor of the project but I certainly am not in favor of that kind of restriction. Can we just provide that they move it to the Marolt site or some other site? I think it is unreasonable for a building of this vintage and value to stop a project. Alan: The point is we are trying to maintain not only the 100 year old houses in this community but houses from a variety of historic eras. We would like to see it preserved. Graeme: As far as the log cabin is concerned I drove by there just to look at it and I certainly wouldn't want to take on the job of building a house to accommodate it. I think it is just a facade and some old logs and I would be in favor of not requiring them to move it. Mari: I think that too onerous a restriction. I could go for requiring them to make an effort but I don't think that requiring that someone move it is reasonable. Roger: I agree with that. The wording should be "The applicant shall make every effort to relocate the log house in town and report back to staff on the status 45 days prior to demolishing". Alan: Aces was very interested in the Berko house. Maybe they would be interested in this house. 6. Service delivery vehicles: we really have not come to any conclusion on whether the service delivery area is adequate. I would note that there is no specific requirement in the code. John: We have our own in-house linen cleaning. So the only service vehicles would be if we had food deliver. On occasion we use one truck that comes in every other week. Por the most part it is more economical just to get it ourselves. John ?: us. And problem. The service vehicles there have not been a problem for we live closer to it than anybody. Their trash is not Roger: I would recommend no requirement here for service area given the nature of this operation. I really don't see a need for a service area. Alan: I just caught the fact that the Hous ing Author i ty' s recommendations for deed restriction of the employee units are not listed as conditions. They should be included. That is on page 5 and 6 of the old memo in your packet. (attached in records) You will see 6 conditions regarding the deed 14 PZMl.IO.89 restrictions on the employee housing units. You can add these 6 conditions as conditions #6 to 10 of this motion. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the special PAR review request of the Mountain House Project and the GMQS exemption request and the employee parking reduction request with the following conditions. The first 5 conditions are the same as we have amended here that are listed on Planning Office memo dated January 10, 1989. (attached in record) Condition 6 through 11 will be identical to conditions 1 through 6 starting on page 5 of Planning Office memo dated December 6, 1988. Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor. Alan: As suggested by Graeme and discussed by you, that you recommended to City Council that you would like to see the City do a better job of plowing that alley to improve the parking situation. MOTION Graeme: I move to recommend to City Council that the City do a better job of plowing that alley in order to improve the parking situation. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. RIO GRANDE PARKING FACILITY (, FINAL SPA GMOS EXEMPTION Tom: Last night the Mayor and Michael Gassman brought up some concerns about 2 aspects of the Rio Grande as to final SPA. One was the design of the Library and the other was the potential use that could be expected on the Plaza. The Council, because of those concerns, set a work session date for Wednesday the 18th. to discuss those other issues on the Rio Grande before they start into the final SPA process. They have invited the P&Z to attend that meeting. Jasmine: I want to go on record as saying this whole review thing has gotten completely out of hand. I was very distressed with this memo about HPC's criticisms. Michael and Bruce both agreed with Jasmine. 15 PZMl.10.89 Tom: I think the major unresolved issue at this point that the resolution doesn't speak to is the design issue. In reading the memo from HPC they have some problems with the horizontal aspects of the library design and the fact that perhaps it wasn't creating as much interest on Mill street as it could. Graeme: Here is an alley which by use is becoming a street. Is it wide enough and is it detailed in such a way to work as a street? Tom: It is certainly becoming a shuttle corridor. Graeme: There is traffic in there all the time. It is used as a thoroughfare rather than a service entrance and I think it is going to become moreso. steve?: RFTA has indicated that they need about 22 feet there to accomodate the shuttle so we take out that extra 2 feet we are assuming on our side of the alley and there is enought room there to do that and to get that row of street trees planted on the sidewalk. We can't do anything about Central Bank's side of it but the overall feeling is going to be much less of a back alley. Graeme: I would think the bank--it might be in their interest to do something with their side of the alley whi ch would make it become more of a street and pleasant pedestrian corridor. Maybe they could be approached and see if they would do something over there. Michael: Concerning snowmelt: I see no condition for the parking facility to require snowmelt. Library architect: We have 4 steps. We are going to investigate it. Michael: I would like to see language stronger than investigate the possibilities. I would like to see it in there both for the library and the garage. Architect: We have no prOblem with that. Welton: We investigated it last meeting and thought it was a good idea. Roger: We should identify areas for snowmelt as the pedestrian thoroughfares. We don't want to snowmelt the entire plaza. In the 3rd Whereas--have it in there somewhere to change the name of spring street Extension. 16 PZMl.IO.89 Under Cap's I think we should include in this section that any necessary right-of-way or easement agreements necessary for the access to Cap's. They will require easements for their truck access. Under Library design: Yes, the majority of the Commission was satisfied with the design. In the 4th 0 paragraph: I felt that we should indicate that it was necessary to integrate the Library elevator with the parking facility. Conditions for the Library: In #7 instead of the work "can" use the work "will" function with the parking structure. #11 for the parking Facility: Include any necessary right-of-way or easement agreements. #5. That the Council rename "Spring Street Extension". If no other name is preferred by Council the street most nearly in alignment with Hallam on the City grid. Tom: The only change to the resolution that I would make is that the Condition #4--the parking facility calls for the alley between the Rio Grande side of Main Street shall be resurfaced and improved for pedestr ian purposes as the concept plan illustrated. Both the Library and the City shall share the cost based upon where each entity borders the alley. MOTION Bruce: I move to approve resolution 89-2 as amended in Roger's comments specifically adding a condition under the library about the alley that was over under the parking garage. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:00pm. J~ca"We~~iitY-CIerk 17