HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890421
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 25. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call
Herron, Jim Colombo,
Peyton and Roger Hunt
were Graeme
Jasmine Tygre
were excused.
Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael
and Welton Anderson. Mar i
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Bruce: Last night city Council passed the auto free disincentive
days for late Mayor June. And the boundary lines of that are
Monarch, Main, Durant and Hunter. I am not sure whether it was
made clear whether those streets will be closed or if it is the
inside.
Alan: I think it means those streets and within. Tom will have
the answer for you in 15 minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
BUTERA STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
MILLER STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Welton: I just want to make sure that the staff understands that
the completion of trail linkages, to my mind and to at least one
of the other members of the Commission, from the 1010 ute
Subdivision through the various ownerships in the Aspen Club area
to HWy 82 and the trails is a high priority. And that any
methodology that can be used to insure that those linkages are
made whenever there is any kind of approval through any of these
properties that it be investigated.
Alan: We certainly agree with you in total that that trailway is
extremely important and should be changed. It certainly was not
missed here and in fact Leslie spent a lot of time looking at
that issue because as you understand there has to be some
relationship between development activity going on and that trail
request and there really isn't one in this case.
Bruce: In this case I also picked up that Engineering
recommended that trail easement but that it was not in one of the
conditions.
Bruce: On recommendation #2 on the stream Margin on the Butera
plan--it says "satisfaction of the Planning & Zoning Office".
Does that mean staff?
Alan: Yes.
Jasmine:
forward to
situation?
What types of reviews then would we be able to look
that would enable us to follow up on this trail
PZM4.25.89
Alan: If there were any re-subdivision, growth management
application that takes place on the property. In other words
when there is development going on for which pedestrian impacts
are caused. The re-development of this house and the stream
Margin Review of this 'house don't cause pedestrian impacts.
There is a trail concern on the river and that has been
addressed.
Your concern is the integration of the trail network and there
should be opportunities to deal with that. Otherwise if there
aren't development opportunities, it is the public's
responsibility to go in and entertain it and compensate. Just to
take isn't reasonable.
Jasmine: Under those circumstances I would move to approve the
Butera and Miller stream Margin Review.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEPTUAL
SPA/GMOS E~ION/REZONING
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Welton re-opened the public hearing.
Alan: Did a review of April 18, 1989 meeting.
Bill Kane: I think that in going through these issues tonight we
would like to respond to each one of them. However our point of
view here is that it does represent one legitimate technically
feasible alternative that does have the benefit of consensus at
least among the 5 groups--the 4 non-profits and Hadid. Based on
that alone it is really worthy of some explanation and some
consideration.
We are not trying to present this plan as the only conceivable
way to go.
Alan: Conservation lands issue is a good one to deal with
because it also will get us not only through issue #3 but issue
#4 which is the alternatives. We will also touch upon issue #12-
-specifically stream margin and technical issue #l--residential
site plan.
The conservation lands brings a number of key concerns together
in one place and is an excellent focus for the Commission I s
discussion.
2
PZM4.25.89
As the applicant discussed with you last week, the application
proposes residential development in a series of small compounds.
Four of those five residential compounds shown on the plat are
located on the valley floor in lands which are presently
designated as conservation on the City zoning map.
The fifth of the compounds is located on top of the bluff in the
vicinity of where the Health Center is presently located. Of the
4 compounds which sit on the valley floor, 3 of those are either
on the edge of the wooded area on the valley bottom which you
walked through about a week ago or are in open meadow areas on
that valley bottom while the one which sits across Castle Creek
is located in densely wooded area.
Looking back at the history of why these lands were designated
Conservation--back in the early 70s there were a series of
environmental studies done of the Roaring Fork area which lead to
the development of the Roaring Fork Greenway plan. Those were
environmental studies trying to identify sensitive environmental
features and the echo system components of the Roaring Fork.
Those studies later became one of the inputs to the development
of the 1973 Aspen Landuse Plan which in itself was the foundation
for the eventual zoning of the property in 1975.
The environmental analysis and the Landuse analysis were
fundamental to the development of the rezoning of the community
which occurred in 1975. The Greenway Plan which was done in 1972
or 1973 had as its intent to protect the ecological systems and
the landscape features of the Roaring Fork River and its
tributaries. And it was intended also to try and establish open
space and trail corridors and open areas along the river banks.
One of the things that is a outgrowth of that Roaring Fork
Greenway plan was that we needed to have implementation
procedures and the stream Margin Review procedure which assists
us in meeting the goals ,and intent of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan. So our regulations reflect on that plan.
Past plans submitted for the Institute Property have not shown
development down on the valley floor. Development has been up on
the bluffs area.
It has clearly been the City I s position throughout the prior
review processes that this land should be restricted against
development. This has been a very consistent position on the
city's part.
I spent some time today walking down along the river bottom with
Tom Cardamon. I am not an environmental expert. Tom really is
someone who was able to help me in gaining a better focus. We
basically found the river bottom wetlands which are mostly not
3
PZM4.25.89
only Cottonwood and Blue Spruce to be important. This is not
something that is just another set of woodlands in the city of
Aspen that we can just say "Well, maybe they come, maybe they
go". This is something significant. And we felt that because of
the size of the stand of woodland down there and because of their
undisturbed state and the woodlands in Tom's opinion are quite
mature, because of the size of the area, he thinks that those
kinds of features help this area to act as a wild life corridor
in the Castle Creek/Roaring Fork ecosystem and that is important.
He was talking to me about the effect of that wildlife corridor
in helping the wildlife populations that inhabit the Aces Hallam
Lake area. And that there can be wildlife that can essentially
move throughout that corridor and that this area in particular
because of its size and its undisturbed state really can be a
habitat.
Tom also told me that river bottoms like this--Cottonwood river
bottoms have been very frequent targets of development throughout
the State and for that reason because they are rapidly
disappearing, the State of Colorado is actually identified now as
a species worth protecting. They are not so plentiful anymore
that they should be just ignored.
I would note for your purposes that we don't have Stream Margin
Review information at this point in time. If you feel that
development in the river bottom may be appropriate at this
conceptual stage, I really think that we are going to need that
Stream Margin Review information to make final conceptual
decisions. I don't think you should wait until the final review
stage for that information. The Stream Margin Review criteria
will help us understand floodplain concerns, wetland concerns,
and river bottom vegetation impacts. Those are all issues on
these lands. This isn't the development of one house in a
relatively disturbed area. It is the development of a number of
houses in an undisturbed area. I would consider this to be very
fundamental issues that you really need to take a look at.
We also walked through the adjacent valley floor meadows.
Several of the compounds are proposed to go onto the meadow areas
trying not to disturb the woodland vegetation which we thought
was quite desirable. But they are in areas that we can identify
as either being woodlands or in one case a natural sage meadow.
What Tom was suggesting to me is that those meadows are in the
process right now of re-vegetating as Cottonwood river bottoms
and that you can see evidence of the Cottonwood starting to move
back into the meadows and with proper conservation techniques, we
can actually enhance that process and strengthen the entire river
bottom eco-system. In other words the stand of wood that you see
down there can actually be increased. It is not receding. It is
4
PZM4.25.89
.,,,,,,
potentially increasing and so Tom is not comfortable with those
meadows as sites for homes either.
My opinion and the one that we had in the memorandum is that it
is inappropriate to place 17 homes each proposed for 6,000sqft in
the valley floor. I look back at the SPA review criteria and #4
suggests that the SPA process is intended to use creative
techniques to avoid environmental impacts. I really think that
it is our job to require much, much more clustering, more of a
multi-family or a townhome configuration up on the bluff, up out
of this valley floor. I think we should really lift the houses
out of the valley floor and try and keep that valley floor
special. I think it can be special and enhance the valley use of
the homes. It can enhance the value to the visitors to the
Institute and can enhance the value to the citizens of this
community if that kind of an area is protected.
We think that development should be permitted and is capable of
occurring up on the bluff where the utilities already exist. But
from a conservation standpoint, we really think that the bottom
lands are not appropriate.
.,-
One of the other things that that brings to mind is the idea of
alternatives. As you know one of the alternatives that have been
talked about and has been talked most directly by the Aspen
Valley Improvement Association is that of a land trust. If you
become uncomfortable with the idea of development, we need to
look as ways of compensating the land owner bringing money into
this development without development occurring. And you may want
to start investigating that concept or have us and the applicant
jointly investigate that concept.
I believe that some development can take place on the bluff and
that no development is not appropriate. We really don't feel
comfortable with development down on the bottom lands.
Bill Kane: I think that it would be appropriate to restate why
those lands are proposed and I have to begin by saying that it
obviously is not an easy choice. The notion of trying local
development along Castle Creek and Roaring Fork was really
motivated by a desire to try to preserve to a maximum degree
possible the existing campus. The traditional open spaces, the
riding ring, Anderson Park and the open meadow entry to the tent
and the spaces that everyone has become familiar with.
To kind of restate our problem it is not complicated in some
respects. We have 85 acres which represents the cultural campus
of Aspen. The institutions there are our cultural heritage.
Almost 80% of the land is owned by private development company.
-
5
PZM4.25.89
That is the fix we are in as a community. And it is not a
problem that is going to go away easily or inexpensively.
We are trying hard to strike for some arrangement that provides a
permanent fix. One that doesn't cause anxiety for everybody in
the west end because there is another planning process that fires
up every two years. It provides a fix to the land owner and it
puts a land ownership basis under all the non-profits.
Those goals were carefuliy thought out. Preserve the traditional
open spaces and human spirit of the campus, provide land under
the non-profits so that they are here forever, resolve the long
term operating plan so that the lodging and food service operates
profitably and stays around, generate capital for the badly
needed building fund, to restore the chalets and make lodging
habitable and provide a fair return to the Hadid group for their
land costs.
The idea of locating buildings down there was not motivated by
what I think could be interpreted as a traditional kind of
development objective. This isn't an instance where it was
desirable to try to take advantage of some kind of market by
putting houses down in an environmentally sensitive area. What
it said was that we have a tough problem and we have got to find
a location for some form of development that provides an economic
return.
What this plan says is this reflects one point of view which says
that it is better to locate these things out of site and out of
mind. And to be very candid about it that is what the plan is
about. I think that we are convinced that on the Roaring Fork
side and the east side of Castle Creek it is possible to execute
that plan that is shown without any disturbance of the 100 year
flood plain as provided to us by the Corp of Engineers.
It reflects a technically feasible viable way to go. It clearly
is not the only alternative. But it is really important for us
to set the record straight about why that has been used. I don't
think that we necessarily just concluded that they were prime
development sites by any means. I think we recognize the
sensitivity and importance and naturally we are willing to talk
about alternatives.
Fritz has been actually involved in this debate longer than any
of us and he has a few comments about why that alternative came
up the way it did.
Fritz Benedict: From the offset one of the non-profit' s most
important goals was to preserve the open space on the campus.
The first Hadid plans had houses really scattered all around that
6
PZM4.25.89
upper level. many of us'thought that that was just changing the
campus too much. It was changing its character. This open space
is very unique. There is nothing like it in Aspen. People use
it as a park. Some people go down to the river bottom but many
less.
Another objective of the non-profits is to preserve the magical
feeling of the Bayer architecture and its low density
relationship to the open space. One of the most important
outcomes of our effort is to retain most of that architecture.
When Herbert and I first planned those chalets, there were no
trees. It was just an alfalfa field and they really stood out as
boxy buildings. But over the years with the landscaping done by
Lou willey and Hank Peterson, the ambience has become magical.
The 1" Aspen trees that we planted are now huge trees and the
buildings are softened up with all that planting. Those meadows
are unique in Aspen.
In order to satisfy the two goals I spent much time last summer
trying to locate sites. The logical place deemed to be to go
down below. It is a trade off. It is not ideal. If somebody
came up with $20,000,000 to buy the property, we would all be
happy as clams. We don't feel that the community can raise that
money. It has been talked about for a long time. But the money
just doesn't seem to show up.
I did a lot of walking down around there and over the years I
have been looking at that land as a possibility to do something
and I am not keen on building down there because I like open
space as much as anybody. But to get the building out of site
just seemed to be all to the good.
If the houses were placed below the bluff they would be out of
site and not impact the campus. The low density housing should
be located in an environmentally sensitive way. A limited number
of houses should not impact the stream, the view plain or the
wild life. If one looks at Sneaky Lane this is very comparable.
The large Cottonwoods really hide those houses and there is at
least as much density along Sneaky Lane as is proposed down here.
I think a lot of you won't believe this but I know from
experience that there is more wildlife down there in that river
bottom than there was when we first started working out there.
We used to ride horseback on a trail on the west side of the
creek. I never saw a deer, never saw a deer track. There were
no raccoons in the whole upper valley at that time. Now there
are a lot of raccoons down there. And there are more ducks than
there were because ponds have been built. There are foxes around
there that didn't exist 30 years ago. There are other people who
would testify to that. Wildlife are not necessarily put off by
7
PZM4.25.89
development. We are suggesting that most of the historic
liability is preserved and not torn down to build a large hotel
which would be a lot more efficient operation and probably
compete better in the winter with the hotels that are at the base
of the mountain.
But we prefer this
60 townhouses up
campus.
plan to the alternate that seems to be 50 or
on the upper level which would impact the
Welton re-opened the public hearing in order to take comment on
the issue of the conservation lands.
Bill Gruenberg, president of the Aspen Chapter of Trout
Unlimited: We feel it is easy to say that no one will complain
about houses out of site but someone must speak for the
environment. We feel as you do that unless consideration must
be given before you take a conservation area and bring it into
the area of 20 some home sites. The area of the confluence of
the Castle Creek and Roaring Fork is one that should be retained
as open space. within the city we know of no other area where a
family can picnic and fish where you can have the amenities that
are down there.
Most areas along the riverbank are very steep. Often they are
private property and there is not an access. So this area does
have access from Black Birch and from Red Butte and from the
Snowbunny area as well as from the Rio Grande Trail. That is why
it is important to keep it available for citizen's use.
As examples of it's use--I have seen Grass Roots taping
Fathergill giving fly fishing demonstrations for the TV. It is
used by a lot of people even though it is out of site. The
wilderness aspects of it are what make it special. You don't
have the crowds that you see around the music tent but it is as
important. If we don't save this area it will be gone forever.
There is no way to re-create an area like this. All the other
studies that have been mentioned have said that this area should
be preserved and kept as unspoiled wilderness and we feel that
with all the development that is legally going on in town it is
even more important to save this type of area.
My good friend Alan is the habitat biologist of the Division of
wildlife. He, as well as Tom Cardamone, feels it is very
important ecologically and environmentally to preserve an area
where there is a confluence of 2 rivers. This will have a
negative, both short term and long term, effect on the river and
on the riparian area. That area is called the bridal path pool
on the Roaring Fork just above the confluence and it is a well
known area for dry fly fishing. It is an area where you can
~.,.-
8
PZM4.25.89
picnic on the bank and your family can be there.
areas like that.
There aren't
Fishing is important industry for Aspen. There are at least 5
fishing shops and outfitters here. There are hundreds and
hundreds of fishermen who use that area. It would all be
impacted by putting 20 some houses down there.
We all love and value the natural lands and open space values.
They should be held as open space. The values are just too
important to be lost forever. We feel they are in need of
conservation for ecological and environmental reasons. It is an
area of peace and serenity as the campus area is. It has been
available to all and it should remain so.
I have spoken to several conservancy organizations in addition to
Trout Unlimited and if necessary they have all said that they
would be interested in leasing or contributing in any way
possible to preserve this as open space in the same character
that it is now.
~
Tom Cardamone: I walked the property with Alan this morning.
One point aside from environment is that I understand we are
trying to work towards some sort of agreement. The Division of
wildlife figures tell me that about 2% of the state is riparian
habitat. And about 70 or more percent of our wildlife species
use it. So in their books it has a real high value. The
wildlife officers locally and the Division of wildlife in their
efforts to preserve land recently have been focusing on riparian
ecosystems. This is an important ecosystem.
The Nature Conservancy has sort of shifted their focus into
looking specifically at habitat that harbor endangered species.
But also along with that they have now they decided that
Cottonwood river bottoms in the state are one of the endangered
habitats in the state along with the endangered species that they
are looking at.
I don't want to suggest that they would be interested in buying
that property. It is just that they are people who know what is
important in terms of preservation and are looking at Cottonwood
river bottoms. As I walked that area this morning what I saw was
that that entire area--even the open meadows where the homes have
been placed, is trying to go back to being what it once was which
was a Cottonwood forest rather than a meadow. And I can tell you
from experience that to try to recreate a Cottonwood river bottom
which I am trying to do at Hallam Lake takes a lot of money and a
lot of time and a lot of energy. If you have got something that
is already there it is a huge mistake to undo it.
9
PZM4.25.89
My last comment relates to my next door neighbor's property. In
about 1965 the river which kind of goose-necked around Red's
property which is just, if you look downstream from the first
foot bridge crossing on the Rio Grande Trail, just below the post
office, the river made a big wide swing there. In 1965 it took a
shortcut and went straight through Red's property and created an
island. When I looked across the river in that Black Birch
property I saw the same potential. So the river bottom stream
margin review with this kind of considerations that are ahead of
you still is really important to look at. It is a real changing
kind of an ecosystem. And you have got to let it change.
,-
Andy Hecht, representing Aspen Meadows Task Force (the AVIA, the
Meadows Road residents, residents on Castle Creek or Castle Creek
Drive, Black Birch Hom~owner's Association and homeowners on
pitkin Green): We want to be supportive of developing a plan
that works. We are not ready to concede the assumption that
Fri tz made that if you don't destroy the conservation land you
must develop 50 or 60 townhouses above or a big hotel.
We would like to test some of those assumptions. My clients have
hired a planner just for that purpose. It is not that his plan
is the right plan. It is a different solution to the problems we
are identifying and we would like at least to have that made
available to you and to have a dialogue about alternatives rather
than just give fray that we will lose a campus atmosphere or lose
Conservation Lands above. We don't think that is necessary.
Gage Davis, planning consultant from Boulder, Colorado, hired by
the Aspen Meadows Task Force: To reiterate my point last time we
met that in no way are we wanting to be obstructionists. We
support 100% the goals of the various non-profits having a home.
We support all of the objectives that Bill has outlined. I think
what we would like to suggest is that there are other ways of
looking at this site plan than the one that is being proposed.
Last time I mentioned our support for the idea of 7th street
access and the preservation in as much as possible the
Conservation lands. We believe that there is certainly an
opportunity to do some single family down there--perhaps by
reducing the number, the price per single family lot can be
increased. There is shown 1 idea of grouping 3 homes for example
on the bench right below the bluff. within it is shown a
5,000sqft envelope which in effect would leave most of the
conservation Lands in tact and still permit the trail system to
pass through. These 3 houses could be accessed by a private
drive, if you will. Perhaps there could be more houses or fewer.
We just don't support the need for as many as has been proposed.
,~
10
PZM4.25.89
I might add also that the number that has been proposed would
have a very high infrastructure cost in terms of roads and
utilities and the bridge crossing the river. This is one way of
maybe getting more value for a lot but reducing infrastructure
cost so it is more profitable.
Lastly, in support of what Fritz was mentioning we too share the
concern about the Bayer residences and it is possible maybe that
there could be as much as a 1, 500sqft addition located below
those units. The units could be saved and you could still have 8
units there of approximately 3,000sqft apiece. If this is
inappropriate from a development point of view, then clearly
those units could be demolished which I understand is under
consideration and those could be replaced by 8 units. with the
relocation of the Health Club to a lower level of future MAA
guest housing, there is an opportunity in our opinion to cluster
8 townhouses on that bluff of about 3,000sqft apiece.
-
South of the existing Aspen Meadows administration building there
is an opportunity for another 3 units of approximately 3,000sqft
each. What I would like to suggest is that this falls about 1
unit short of the number of units that are proposed. Admittedly
it is a different concept in terms of land use. It is not just
single family. It is a mix of single family and townhouse. If
more single family were desired, we submit that depending upon
the outcome of the litigation that there could conceivably be
another 4 or 5 single family units clustered on the edge of the
race track. This would exceed the number of units that has been
proposed from the development point of view and we contend leaves
as much open space as the present solution. In fact, more.
We believe that this scheme here provides a reasonable return on
investment and meets all the other obj ecti ves and it doesn't
necessarily have to result in 50 to 60 townhouses cluttering up
the meadow or the race track.
In closing I would say we are working on a proj ect right now
where townhouse units of about 3,000sqft are being designed and
sold for $400.00 per sqft. That is a significant amount of
money. We don't know what the bottom line requirement is but we
suggest that maybe a more creative approach to land use can save
a large share of the ,Conservation area and still return a
reasonable investment.
Michael: I would like to see the applicant respond to this plan.
I certainly think that if we can keep the homes off that meadow
that that would be terrific. When I walked down there the first
time I thought that that was a horrible place to have to put
homes too. I understand the concern in trying to keep the upper
part in a semi-pristine state. When I went up there on that day
11
PZM4.25.89
there were a whole bunch of kids playing there. So you are kind
of torn between 2 alternatives.
Those alternatives become difficult when you consider what we are
trying to do here insofar as getting this plan adopted. It seems
to be that that is the primary concern. As we walked away that
day I mentioned to Tom that all the sites were lousy sites for
the homes. But that somehow Hadid had to make enough money so
that we can do what we need to do here. My thought to Tom almost
as a joke was that if we took the property--the Marolt property--
and we gave them a piece of that it might even be better home
sites than the river because the river has no views particularly
and I have never thought that the Marolt property was a fantastic
piece of property. And I don't know that 20 homes there would be
such a horrible entrance to Aspen. And I said that kind of
lightly to Tom but I think that alternatives like that are
certainly preferred to going down to the river and going up on
top of this piece of property here. I think we have to recognize
that somehow we have got_to do something so that we can get this
plan adopted.
Bruce: First, does the Conservation zoning go away if we extend
the SPA on this or does it remain as underlying zoning?
Alan: It would remain. The outcome of any SPA planning process
is a designation of zones, area and bulk requirements and uses.
So the zone that is designated there becomes less significant
than the plan that is adopted. The R-30 designation that is
suggested in the proposal recognizes the proposed uses in the
plan.
Bruce: Unless we do something to change the Conservation zone,
it stays there.
Alan: It would be Conservation/SPA. That is correct.
Bruce: The Conservation Zone would allow some homes to be build
there as of right.
Alan: Right. You need 10 acres of land.
Bruce: Much like Mickey, I have been concerned about putting
homes in that sensitive area. At the same time I am concerned
about working the deal with our arts groups and these other non-
profits to make the deal work for them. It seems to me that one
of the things that becomes very crucial--we talked about the
legal problems and the lawsuits on those 2 pieces along Meadows
Road and the other down the street. That may be very crucial to
making this plan work because it may be that we don't want all
12
PZM4.25.89
those houses down on the river bottom and the only place for them
to be is along Meadows Road.
~..
I am not opposed to some houses going in that area. Particularly
I am not too concerned about sage brush meadow. I am more
concerned about the area on down Castle Creek than I am about the
sage brush meadow. Somehow I think we have got to strike the
deal and make this plan work. I don't think any of us can try to
figure out what kind of rate of return this developer has to
have. We don't know what their actual land costs are. That is
going to be for them to tell us. Whether the deal will work with
23 houses or work with i3 houses. They are going to just flat
out have to tell us that. But we have got to work a deal so that
we can keep these arts groups here.
I had discussions today with a number of people and almost half
of our economy or hal f of the year's economy is based around
thesegroups--the MAA and the other groups who meet throughout
the summertime. We must recognize that and we must recognize and
admit the importance of those groups and somehow bring this group
together and come up with a plan that will satisfy everybody.
Jasmine: I agree with much of what both Mickey and Bruce have
said. I think though that the complexity of the proposal
obviously requires us to look into alternative solutions. It
seems to me that the Conservation area could take perhaps a
couple of houses very limited in size. My experience with other
development in areas that are likely to be used by people for
recreation is that the people who are putting down the kind of
money that is going to be required to buy one of these homes do
not want people like me walking through their property or
anywhere near it.
That is a legitimate concern. I think that for that reason that
we have to be very careful about the conservation areas because
of the potential conflict that will exist between people who
traditionally use that area for recreation and the people who
certainly have every right to the privacy of their own dwelling.
I think that a compromise plan which would remove the greater
number of the houses from the Conservation area allowing some
development and houses being in a much smaller building envelope
would be desirable. I think it would be really foolish not to
take advantage of looking into the alternative of having some
kind of conservancy group or trust compensate the developer for
that portion of the land that would be used or saved as a public
access. And that perhaps by combination of the conservation
trust I s re-arrangement of some of the site we might be able to
come up with something that is a little more satisfactory than
the plan that the applicant has proposed thus far.
~,~,
13
PZM4.25.89
Jim: I would like to look at some of the issues involved in
single family occupation vs. townhouse and mixed use occupation.
As far as environmental impacts generated by each of those one of
them being on a singular type of use the other being on a
complicity of use as far as townhouses and single family. I have
a feeling that you are going to find greater impacts both traffic
wise environmentally etc. on large townhouse occupation.
I am wondering where that fine line is between townhouse and
single family occupation which will allow more creative of a
development plan and if there is a reason why single family
solutions to this property are best as far as impact results go.
I think that will help us a little bit in addressing the location
and traffic patterns and impact solutions to the area once we
have a good idea of which each of those types of uses and a
combination of those uses are presented.
Graeme: I am also very concerned about taking land that has been
designated Conservation and developing it in this manner. And I
would hope that the applicants are getting the message that
everybody here is concerned about that.
When I was down there on the field trip that we took--as an
architect I felt putting that many houses of that size was
crowding things down there. And especially for instance--we
didn't go across the river but on the northeastern one--that
grouping there seemed to me to be half on an upper bench and half
on a lower bench. In other words there is quite a grade change
between the top of that grouping and the bottom of that grouping
which isn't really reflected here. I think it is going to be
tighter than what is shown here.
I would certainly be more amenable to a plan that left this part
of the parcel alone. Not only from a conservation standpoint but
I think from--and I would like to say at this point that I think
that the non-profits are the best of the heart and the soul of
Aspen and I certainly as much as anyone want to see them maintain
here and flourish here.
To do that I think that they need what George has been talking
about which is a certain circle of sereni ty. Not only the
physicists but everyone there needs that. This site has been
able to work the way it has and have the peace that it has
because in a way it is a backwater. It is a dead end. There is
nobody going through this site. The people who are working and
going to performances and whatever here are not putting up a
traffic that is going somewhere other than here. So it remains
its own backwater.
14
PZM4.25.89
When and if the lower part is developed and all of a sudden there
is an access through the campus and I think that that starts to
pick up the circle of serenity pretty seriously. I think the
non-profits ought to think about that aspect of it.
Also I think that perhaps there are some other uses that could go
on on the river bottom that might not be as destructive to the
environment as what is proposed. I personally feel that the
whole meadows area should be restricted to uses for the non-
profits. What could go on down there is the question that I
would have for Tom that would not significantly impact what is
the most valuable qualities of that site.
Tom: A couple of quick thoughts--one--trails passing through
obviously are much more impactful than activities that are on
site. And so recreation--trails--linear recreation. And the
other thought that somehow relates to the question is that if the
Cottonwood River bottom is protected and even enhanced you end up
with a vertical component to your environment. And when we were
talking about wildlife I think in this situation we are thinking
about a very occasional deer, fox and song birds.
Regarding birds just for a brief moment I remember Walter Gans
giving a talk about China. He mentioned that there were no birds
in China because they have either eaten or poisoned them so they
can grow and eat their food themselves. And just to have a
Cottonwood river bottom with a canopy full of singing birds is an
amenity that we take for granted and if we make some provision to
protect and enhance that vertical component called trees we even
enhance development on that site.
Graeme:
wouldn't
facility
kinds of
So you feel that there could be certain uses which
impact too strong. For instance not a performing
but a practicing facility for musicians? Would those
uses be incompatibly?
Tom: That would be much, much less impactable than a permanent
residence with people coming and going certainly.
Graeme: How much of the impact is from the roads which effect
the drainage? In other words if the development were isolated to
one particular area down there to try and minimize the roads,
would that be advantageous or not?
Tom: Obviously clustering allows things to move around the
cluster. One of my concerns this morning was that the cluster
went across the corridor--the river being the corridor. That
could be a big problem. So it has to be a cluster that doesn't
stretch across the entire corridor.
15
PZM4.25.89
Welton: I have a different kind of thinking about this from the
rest of the commission. I don't know whether the 2 absent
members would concur with me or not. But I was intrigued when I
first saw this plan that they, from a site planning standpoint,
had done something kind of creative and kind of inventive and
moved the development away from the historical aspects of the
campus and moved it to an area that, although I was familiar
with, I was not nearly as familiar with as the Institute campus.
I thought that was a good idea.
what I didn't like was the single family dwelling as a highest
and best use as in 6,000sqft spec houses being the only use for
the land in Aspen. I don't think 6,000sqft spec houses is a good
use for land in Aspen. We aren't manufacturing any more of it
and it is a one-time revenue enhancer for the developer that does
it but it is a fact of life we are going to have to live with in
this application as a trade-off for guaranteeing the future of
the Institute.
I think that the Castle Creek Valley floor is a proper place
particularly after walking the areas that were proposed for
development for this because it is held away from mature
vegetation, it is held away from the river. It is tucked up
against the side of the cliffs. I don't think spreading it out
the way it is shown in this is appropriate. I think the
clusters, if it is SPA, ~UD whatever you want to put on it, use
that site planning flexibility to come up with something that is
more compatible as Tom said--doesn't block the corridors.
Cluster it more tightly. Maybe some more duplexes. Maybe
clusters of 3 and 4 units. Single family seem to be selling
real, real well this year. But maybe 5 years down the road the
single families will be what we have a glut of on the market and
nobody will want a $2,000,000 single family house on the river.
I would like to see that pressure relieved where it is not
impacting the campus of the Aspen Institute in that area in this
Conservation area down below but done in a more ecologically
sensitive aspect to wildlife migration routes in that corridor.
Because it was designated Conservation in the 1973 Masterplan, to
my mind, doesn't mean that it is locked into Conservation with
all the implications that word means forever more. It's not as
impacted and it could be done in a less impacted way than all the
other developments that are constructed already on the river--
Black Birch being one of the and Pitkin Reserve being another.
It can be done sensitively and I think if the pressure is there.
It belongs down below to a lesser extent on the Campus elevation
up high. But the two being separate is a very good plan
approach.
16
PZM4.25.89
Bill Kane: In response to Gage's plan, I think that we would
like to acknowledge that as a provocative thoughtful set of ideas
that will be seriously taken under consideration.
We got off to kind of a discussion here about numbers of units
which is premature right now. Gage's plan actually does specify
a number of units. Fritz puts in a number of 50 to 60
townhouses. I think the unit discussion is probably too early to
try to resolve right now: What we are looking for is a sense of
the Commission about the landuse type and location for these
things. I think we are going to have to go back to the Hadid
group and if those Conservation lands and single family scheme is
not the preferred alternative then there is some sort of economic
equation here that will trade out in terms of number of
townhouses. I think you can appreciate with 5 groups, everybody
with a slightly different view of life--an alternative
development plan almost requires the same level of review within
those groups that we are trying to accommodate right here. So I
think, for our side we don't want to put 50 or 60 townhouses on
the table. But by the same token we would appreciate it if the
number isn't 16. I think that we would like the freedom to
examine that and if we are going to be talking about alternatives
have the ability to seriously look at what those landuse options
are without being tied to a number.
Alan: Some of the members are willing to look at some
development on the bottom but they would like it to be in the
less impacted areas away from the stream much more away from the
crossing of the Castle Creek corridor which might then help us to
avoid bringing in the Stream Margin issues right now. I don't
think any of us are prepared to look at numbers but I don't think
that as a group, they precluded looking at some units down there
if they can be much less impacted than these compounds which
broke the flow of people moving to Picnic Point or crossing the
river.
Gideon: I would point out that this is not public property. It
is private property. I am speaking for the Aspen Institute and
you have got to look at the full circle that this has come. We
were told in no uncertain terms that the race track was sacred.
And we wanted to keep the development out of the race track. We
as non-profits see ourselves as just as endangered species as the
things down below that we are trying to protect. We realize that
this plan down below was going to have impact on some of the
neighbors. On the other hand in the overall scheme of the town,
we felt that the preservation of the campus and the non-profits
was paramount. Single family was looked upon and chosen because
given the realities of the market today there is an ability to do
less density with single family and recoup the funds that
particular way. Whether we are talking numbers or not, the
17
PZM4.25.89
reality is that when you go the multi-family aspects there will
be higher numbers, higher impact on the campus. While we are all
concerned about conservation and the preservation of endangered
species we as the non-profits see ourselves as endangered species
that needs just as much protection as that land down below and
the wildlife that is intended to be preserved.
Jasmine: What procedure would we have to follow to see if we
could get either money from the open space fund or some
conservation group to purchase some of the river area.
The point is I think everybody on the commission is very
sensitive to the spirit of compromise of the proposal and the
need for the private development entity to get a reasonable
return. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to explore
the possibility of the purchase of some portion of the land that
we feel is most sensitive which would then relive some of the
pressure financially on the developer. This would allow less
density in the areas that we think are sensitive without pushing
development up to the campus which would impact the non-profits.
So this is an area that I am particularly interested in
exploring.
"'.-..'
Alan: It is something that we have had some conversations about.
If it is something that the Commission is interested in I think
it is a charge worth giving to us to spend some time on. The
applicant is going to be spending time in the next 6 weeks
looking at land development concerns. If you want us to look at
more institutional concerns like that we could certainly do that.
I would be willing to spend some effort trying to help.
Welton: I think it is definitely worth while investigating.
Alan: It is hard to believe that there are no possibilities for
something like that given the wealth and the interest in this
community.
Jim: I think it is certainly worth while thing to look into. I
think we need to proceed as though it were not going to happen at
this time. otherwise we are going to create a distorted
condition for the applicant in which they are proceeding with us
hoping that they can't get what we are trying to get approval
for.
Welton asked for comments from the public.
Bill: As President of Trout Unlimited today I received a
brochure listing the Trout and Salmon Foundation in Madison,
Wisconsin which has recently given $6,400 for work on Lincoln
Creek. There are many conservancy organizations that will
l8
PZM4.25.89
protect riparian areas and I have had very high success in
getting grants. So I would say that there is progress of people
contributing to make this a possibility.
Bruce: I am interested in knowing if the applicant has any
alternatives stowed away back there or whether their position is
that this is your plan and you are going to push on this because
you know Council is going to hack away at you anyway. Do you
have alternate plans?
Bill Kane: What we are doing is going through these issues and
trying to get a review of the Planning Commission to identify and
understand what you like and dislike about the plan. We are
going to test some of these ideas. It is a planning process that
we are involved in and will try to come up with something that
will represent a consensus view if humanly possible. No, we are
not trying to bully through one point of view here. What we are
saying is that the plan as presented does represent one
legitimate alternative that does have the consensus of the 5
groups. We believe this can be done technically and in a
feasible way without clearly impacting flood plain. That is a
100% given that there be no 100 year flood plain and that we are
very confident about picnic Point portion and the east side of
Castle Creek not having involvement in wetlands and as identified
by any typical kind of wetland indicators species of vegetation.
So the plan represents to us an important starting point. It
does represent the consensus of the group but if there are
features of this plan that are simply not going to gain approval
we need to know that and we need to go back to the drawing board
and that is what we are prepared to do.
Chuck Carlton, Director of the Aspen Valley Improvement
Association: I think that there are members of our association
who might be interested in working with the newly formed Roaring
Fork Conservancy in working with the developer and other
interested groups in putting together some kind of land trust for
some of this area. That is only going to work if those groups
have some sort of dollar figures involved. I think the community
is dealing in a bit of a vacuum and I would certainly volunteer
our organization either in conjunction with and supporting the
Aspen Meadows task force or independently with the representative
developer and other organizations to try and fast-track that sort
of conversation to see if it does make any sense.
John Sarpa: I just wanted to add to what Bill Kane said. From
our perspective--are there alternatives? No way. We spent 11
months going through 50, 60, 70 alternatives, not one of which we
haven't already heard from, thought about, looked at. As was
mentioned earlier for the first 5 or 6 months of this process
there were no homes at all in that Conservation area. They were
19
PZM4.25.89
spread out in different places up on the bluff and there were
different combinations. Some were townhouses. Some were houses.
We went through all those designs. We went through all those
plans. We looked at Conservation vs. not Conservation there. We
looked at densities and traffic patterns.
We spent, among ourselves, a great deal of time looking at those
alternatives and we have come to agreement on the one that we
submitted. And we feel strongly about it. It is not perfect.
It has weaknesses and it can be improved and we know we will get
improvements from you. But we believe that the process that we
went through was a creative one, was one that balanced interests.
How do we give back 2/3rds of what we privately to these
organizations so that they can do something with it? That was
what that was all about., And it was Fritz Benedict who came up
with the idea--"Get all that density off the bluff because we
want to keep our campus".
So I think it will really come down to a discussion with you and
the community how the density in the campus itself vs. this
Conservation plus the trade off there. I can tell what these
people have to say about the density of the campus and what that
means to the Aspen ideals.
.. .",~,
Sure we are open to other ideas of how to fine tune that but we
sure don't have an alternative bee in our back pocket. That plan
has the basics there and now help us move it around maybe a
little bit and we think we can come up with some final solution.
Harris Sherman: I would like to say on behalf of the non-profits
that during this 11 month negotiation one of the goals of the
non-profits was to reduce the development density to the lowest
possible level. This involved literally 4 or 5 months back and
forth with the Hadid interest about what was an acceptable level
of development.
I think the land trust is a great idea if it can happen. But we
are really talking here' about millions of dollars of donations
that would have to be raised in order to accomplish the
acquisitions. I know how hard these funds are to come by. And I
hope we will be realistic about what is possible within the
context of acquiring land for these purposes.
Michael: I would like to see us consider and discuss the
alternatives. I would like to see us go forward with the plan.
I think we have to take a look at reality and reality is that we
preserve the non-profits. But I don't think there is anything
wrong with discussing the alternatives and land trusts and City
for the negotiation of purchase, condemnation. They are all out
there. They can always be done at any time and any stage in the
~'".." ,
20
PZM4.25.89
process. But I don't think that we should slow down the process
and not have a plan that is going to be in place that the
developer can rely on so that the non-profits can get their plan
going forward while we are doing that.
One other alternative--we considerd trying to taking a piece of
the Marolt property and giving the developer the same amount of
home sites. I know the Parks Association isn't going to be happy
about that. But I don't think the Marolt property is near as
important to Aspen as the non-profits are or as this area around
the non-profits or as the river bottom is. If I had my choice of
where I wanted to go on a Sunday to a park in Aspen, I would
prefer to go down to Picnic Point more than the Marolt property.
I think it is a home site that could work for them because to put
an infrastructure in there would be a hell of a lot cheaper than
going down to the river and they could sell homes with infinitely
better views than you have down at the river.
Paul Taddune: Did you see the discussion regarding the Marolt
property on television last night? Someone made the prediction
that someone would make the proposal to put home sites on the
Marolt property. And the arrangement that was agreed upon last
night was that the MAA would be allowed its dormitory facility
and the rest of the property would be remain as relative open
space with a couple of other uses. So if you go by the agreement
that was reached last night for a tentative agreement, home sites
were not considered. In fact the council agreed to not consider
home sites out there.
Michael: Maybe it is time they considered some kind of an
alternative that might be better than agreeing with the Parks
Association. Maybe it is time to go with what is best for the
Community.
King Woodward, Aspen Institute: We are under time constraints.
And looking at 2 years down the line would be very difficult.
Graeme: I think I speak for a lot of people who feel that we
have enough very expensive home sites and large homes and that
they don't add to the community in the way that a lot of people
would like. They do add some money I guess. But the west end
and on the panel here we have had to deal with this a lot. with
large expensive homes in the west end and you live next to them
and nobody is ever home. You don't have any neighbors. A lot of
blank windows and little peeping lights that say "Keep away.
This place is guarded". I know a lot of people, myself included,
who feel that that is the worst of the changes that are happening
in Aspen.
21
PZM4.25.89
.
I would much rather see a proposal that doesn't depend on that
kind of development.
Welton: I think we all would.
COMMERCIAL
Alan: As noted in the memo--"During those times when the campus
is not being used by the Institutions it will be available for
use by individuals and other non-profit groups". The concept of
using the campus for commercial use has been a continuing issue
to be addressed in the review process for as far back as I can go
in the files. It has always come up.
.-
It certainly seemed to us to be a fundamental concern
particularly after talking to the representatives of the
neighborhoods that have now become this task force that has
addressed you tonight. They are the area that is the access way
for the commercial use. They have great concerns about
commercial traffic coming through their neighborhood year around
and not just at the peak times of year. We also are aware that
our plans, our zoning, neither of those would indicate the
commercial use of the property is appropriate.
What we are suggesting to you in this issue is that determination
needs to be made as to whether any use of these facilities
outside of the institutional use is appropriate. And if so what
kinds of limits should occur on that use.
Maybe some quantified basis is a reasonable approach. Some
amount of commercial use may be acceptable. But the fundamental
concept here should be that the commercial use is accessory to
the Institutional use. That it is not a second principle thing
that is going on on this property or else we have got 2 real
downtown tourist zones in Aspen.
Public comment on commercial uses of Meadows property.
There were none.
Applicant comments.
Bill Kane: The lodging at Aspen Meadows has operated for 33
years. As far as we know it is not an illegal use. It is a
legal conforming use within the zone district. So it is hard to
argue that it is non-conforming use. Also the plan as submitted
clearly represents the least potential for commercial use of any
plans that have been considered to date by a fair margin.
Particularly compared to the Blue Ribbon Commission and some of
the recommendations which was 200 rooms plus 5 single family
22
PZM4.25.89
houses. And those 200 rooms were going to be managed on a
lodging basis. That is very different from the proposal that is
in front of you.
More importantly is that with the kind of funds that are being
expended there clearly is the hope and intention to be able to
continue winter operations much in the same mode as they have
been conducted in the past. And it is a very important part of
the economic solution to the overall plan. It is hard to
rationalize some of the investment that will have to go into
these building if it is a 90 or 100 day season.
King: The Meadows has 'been used as a commercial use. I was
affiliated with it in 1956 and 57. The Meadows has always been
open--the dining room, the Health Center, the tennis courts, the
lodging accommodations. The Institute uses the facilities in the
summer time. But in the last few years or so, prior to that time
we have used it continually during the winter time too as
conferences. But it has also been used commercially to skiers.
During the time that the Copper Kettle was there, 1959 to 1966
there was more traffic commercial use of that facility than ever
since that time. That is a long time ago. Most of the people
living on that road except for Jim Adams didn't live there at
that time. It was a lot of commercial use.
Our plan is to limit the use of the Health Center and the tennis
court on a very limited basis and not promote it as a commercial
use. The Institutions can't be responsible for paying this
deficit. So it has got to be used as a commercial use in some
way as it has always been. It has never been used other than
that even during the time of the summer time when the Institute
has the right of first refusal on the rooms. If there are empty
rooms that we cannot fill, they are sold through the Aspen
Meadows or through the Grande Aspen Hotel or on a reservation
basis and even through the Aspen Reservation Services so we could
fill them up because we couldn't run at a loss.
Gideon: What happens in the summer is we subsidize the
Institutions. In other words we charge lower rates so that we
can stay there. If we would have to pay the rates to make it
work for year-round operation we would go out of business. So
one of the things it is a Robin Hood type thing in that we do
need the year round use to help pay for the non-profits who use
it in the summer.
Welton: Does any member of the commission have a problem with
the continued use of the Institute property as described in the
application in their commercial uses?
23
PZM4.25.89
Graeme: I think we should maybe know what
a building is there it should be used.
certain limits.
they are. I think if
But there should be
Welton: I don't see anything on the application that says that
is going to dramatically change.
Jasmine: By the same token I would not be comfortable with any
expansion of commercial uses that was not accessory to the
Institutions. I would like to see that stipulation. I would
like to make sure that that is part of the condition of approval
because if we are trying to preserve the non-profit serene
atmosphere I think that the existing tourist use as a subsidy for
the non-profits is perfectly acceptable. And I think that there
would be no problem with that. Beyond that I think you are going
to have a lot of community problems.
SUBDIVISION
Alan: The essence of concern there was are there any actions
proposed in this development plan which leave us uncertain about
the future use of the property in terms of should one of the
Institutions leave. One point that I heard at the last meeting
was in the consortium agreement there is sort of a right of
refusal if an institution is to pullout, the others have the
ability to go in and take that option out. That was one note in
terms of this question of future uses.
The subdivision question came up at the time Roberts--there was a
lot of concern raised at that time given the fact that this is a
specially planned area. Given the fact the whole point of the
thing is to get integrated planning for the property that every
interest that is created on the property potentially fragments
the process.
Back at the time of that subdivision we got around that by saying
regardless of the subdivision any plan must be brought forward by
both entities. Obviously we have been successful to this point
in bringing forward a plan that is comprehensive. But we were
concerned as you continue to fragment that--is that co-operation
going to be fostered or is it going to be reduced.
"",.,....
Then we heard a concern particularly from the neighborhood as to
what happens if this kind of plan is approved. What kind of
guarantees are there that 2 years from now we are not coming back
in with another plan that bails out the problem again. In the
past we have looked at restrictions against development on the
property and those would seem to be a desirable SPA requirement
without trying to lock things in. We always, as a group, want to
lock or tie the hands of future review bodies and these are
,,~"'"'
24
PZM4.25.89
dynamic institutions. Their needs will change. I think we all
need to be sure that we don't lock it from that standpoint.
But I would like to lock it from the standpoint of future use of
whatever properties we decide are Conservation lands whether it
is the race track or the lands at the bottom. I think the
neighbors need to understand that they are not going to be
threatened with development of those properties again in the
future.
Sherman Harris: As you can see from ~tem #2 on our list of goals
a fundamental part of ,this plan 1S to see that the three
principle non-profit groups each will own a portion of the land.
I want to explain why that is so important. I think particularly
from the standpoint of music and physics, their situation over
the past years has been a very tenuous one by virtue of the fact
that they have been tenants with leases which really have not
covered or addressed their long-term needs.
Because of that their future in many ways has been extremely
uncertain. They have not been equal partners in the operation
and the direction of the Meadows. So what the plan does is it
sets aside about 8 to 9 acres for music. It sets aside about 3
acres for physics and by virtue of their control, we believe the
certainty and their control over their own destiny will be
considerably enhanced. It really is a very critical component to
their remaining at this site on a long term basis.
I want to stress that although there is separate ownership there
will be agreement amongst the three entities about the operation
and the maintenance of the facility. There will be restrictive
covenants to insure that the aesthetic and environmental
qualities of the campus will be retained. And there will be free
and unrestricted access. We are not going to be fencing certain
areas and saying to people you can't come onto this portion of
the campus vs. another portion of the campus.
with respect to future uses question: Hopefully if this plan is
adopted, these groups are in Aspen now and in the future. But if
for some reason one of them had to leave Aspen there is provision
in this draft agreement that is being worked on by the non-
profits with each other that one group leaving, the other three
groups including the International Design Conference them would
have a right of first refusal to acquire the property that is
being offered up for sale.
In addition to that there would be covenants or conditions
restricting the uses to the cultural and the academic uses which
currently exist. So that is one protection.
25
PZM4.25.89
The second protection is that this is an SPA area and therefor
any change in use has to be agreed upon by all of the parties.
Now you have three parties rather than one which agreeably makes
it more difficult and maybe that is a benefit for any change. If
there is any deviation in the status quo, all three would have to
agree to that.
Obviously the P&Z and the city Council would have to approve any
change that occurs here. So we think that will go a long way and
you may elect to zone this property as well through some sort of
new campus or academic zoning which would underline the SPA
zoning. I think you could add additional restrictions on uses if
you would so like to do that.
My understanding is that the Hadid group would be willing to
basically forego any further development of the residential area
if they were to be given the right to build these 23 units. I
think that is an important element because there will not be any
changes beyond what is approved through this residential zone.
John Sarpa: That is accurate.
Welton asked for public comment.
There was none.
Alan: Paul related to me the thought that maybe the formation of
a homeowner's association might be another method that you could
use.
Paul: The reason I made that suggestion is that with these SPA's
in other parts of the City in similar situations we don't know
when the group is speaking for the--or the applicant is speaking
for the group. with a condominium we generally have condominium
associations so if there is some change to a condominium plat we
know that the association has somehow processed it and submitted
the application.
And it may be that it would be advisable to have some kind of an
organization that before any change was suggested to the Council
or the P&Z Commission it was processed through an organization
that somehow considered all the voting based on the respective
interests. And they are presenting somewhat of a united front so
we have an applicant or an association that is sponsoring the
change on behalf of the whole SPA.
Harris: The draft agreement that we are working on, although it
is not technically a homeowner's association, there is a council
basically for non-profit groups that would meet on regular days
to go over how the operation is running, what the future plans
are and I think we can work something out there that would at
26
PZM4.25.89
least give you a sense of these 4 groups who are working together
and that they stand united.
Jasmine: For some time I have thought about the importance of
putting an underlying academic type zone on the campus portion of
this property which I think that that would be a very key to
satisfying a lot of concerns on the part of a lot of people in
the community who have said "Well, what is to prevent all of
these institutions from selling this to a developer who is going
to put up more million dollar homes?".
Alan: I would see the academic zoning as being part of the final
plan. The deed restriction is a further step. The right of
first refusal and the covenants and agreements and seeing those
and making that part of the approval process are another
protection.
Paul Barnett: At the last meeting I suggested that maybe
consideration should be given to having the property owned by a
public entity and leased to the non-profits. One of the reasons
is that even with the academic zoning you have no control over
the use. The right of first refusal among the existing non-
profits is fine but it still is a right of first refusal to match
the price or bid from somebody else and no control over who will
be the user of the property.
There are a lot of academic institutions that I don't think would
lend to the cultural heritage of Aspen that might very well be
interested in buying into the property. I think ownership by a
public entity, a long term lease to the non-profits satisfies
their long term needs. It also protects the City in terms of
what is going to be done by the property in the future and who is
going to be doing it.
We are talking about this property as being a cultural center and
an important aspect for the community. You are attempting to
negotiate a transaction between the Hadid group and the non-
profits to provide for continued use by non-profits and an
undetermined return to the Hadid group. I don't think you can do
that. I think you really have to look to what the best use of
the property is and what we want to do with the property and how
the City can control it.
Bruce: I think there is a solution to that. Whether the non-
profits will buy into it or not remains to be seen. That could
be done through a deed restriction where the Hadid group deeds to
the non-profits individually that piece of land that they are
going to get so long as it is used--and then you put in whatever
entity. And then have it come to the City. That would be one
way that the city could guarantee that those institutions that we
27
PZM4.25.89
want are here and they are going to stay here on that land and we
can control how they are going to use the land through SPA.
But then if they ever do decide to pack up and leave, the city
gets the land and we can determine how it is going to be used.
will the non-profits buy ,into that?
Gideon: The Institute won't. The Institute presently owns 22
acres. The Institute is raising funds to renovate. We are going
to have an awful lot of money into that facil i ty . We have no
objection whatsoever to say that we will go along with what the
academic zoning is but we certainly don't want the City to be the
ultimate decision maker. If Perkins Institute or someone like
that wants to come in along with us and what if some members of
the city council decide that they don't like that.
This is an academic institution. We need academic freedom. We
are certainly not going to turn it over to the city council of
the City of Aspen.
Sherman: We are willing to condition the use of this property--
dedicate the use to cultural and academic purposes. I think that
ought to satisfy the City and others about the use in the future
without having to dictate who specific is going to be using it.
Fritz: The Music Associates and the Physics are getting their
land from the Institute not Hadid.
Chuck Videll: I think we should remember that at one time this
was an academic campus. And one of the institutions did decide
to sell and put the money in their pocket and sell it to a
private developer. And if that hadn't occurred and created a
problem now that we want to restructure it and go back and take
care of these institutions and maintain it as an academic campus.
I believe that a little bit more control in some form or another
whether it be what Paul Taddune is suggesting or a that
owns the property which members of the foundation are the groups
that we are talking about or whether the City is involved. This
independent control and the problems that the MAA and the Physics
Institute has had with their prior landlord and they are all
unwarranted in terms of the people that were involved in the
past. But I do believe that we need to structure some form to
get past that and not allow these kind of license to be set up to
where they have the individual control over their properties and
will get this thing back into an academics campus that functions
that way and functions collectively.
Michael: I think the things that have been proposed tonight by
the applicant certainly restrict the use of that property
sufficiently. We don't have to take steps to make sure the City
""",,../"
28
PZM4.25.89
owns it. I agree with what Gideon said. What concerns me is I
would be concerned about city council as it changes every 2 or 4
years making a decision as to what group is there and I a lot
more comfortable knowinq these groups or their successors are
making those decisions. Those are decisions that are far better
made by them than by City Council.
Welton asked if anyone disagreed with that.
No one disagreed.
TRAFFIC AND HOUSING
Alan: In terms of the traffic study, I don't really think there
is much argument that the traffic information that has been
presented right now is inadequate. The questions is what does
that mean for your review.
The applicant has committed to do a full computation analysis as
part of analysis of the property this summer since existing data
doesn't exist right now to analyze the property. That
information will be available to you at the final plan stage.
The question to you is whether transportation issues are of such
import and given existing transportation problems in the area
that those are significant enough nature that we really can't
make any decisions until .we have that information.
Do we not know whether any development at all is reasonable in
the area. If the answer is we don't know that, I think we need
the transportation information. On the other hand if there is a
belief that some level of additional traffic can be tolerated but
we don't know what that is, the transportation study ought to
answer that. Clearly we don't have the technical basis to make
that decision now using the available transportation data.
In terms of affordable housing the situation is equally bleak.
The applicant did an analysis of the housing question although I
find it to be totally insufficient. But there is no plan for how
to deal with the housing question. We really have nothing in
here in the area of affordable housing except for an analysis of
the impacts of the 23 residences on employee generation criteria.
When we get to issue #9, we will discuss whether that is adequate
and in my opinion it is not adequate at all.
Bill Kane:
think what
be met.
housing.
resolution
It is premature for us to be specific right now. I
we are prepared to say is that employee housing will
It will be p'rovided off site and it will be real
untill we know exactly what the kind of final
of the plan is since the number of units and peak
~_"d
29
PZM4.25.89
occupancy will drive the number of units required I think we
prefer to leave it at that point now and assure you that there
will be a competent housing plan that will address the code and
the requirements.
Parry: If we start trading density on the bluff for the low
density down below, every unit you add to get out of that
Conservation zone, impacts the cost. We can't present a plan at
the conceptual level and I don't think the conceptual SPA intent
requires that.
Alan: While I fully concur with what Bill and Parry are saying
that the specific numbers in a sense are an output of whatever is
agreed to in the conceptual free market plan at the same time if
you are totally dissatisfied with the housing plan, do you really
have a concept at all?
Are you g~ing to approve or are you going to get as far as final
plan reV1ew to find that the conceptual housing plan is
unsatisfactory and what do we have at that point in time?
Welton: I think they are caught in a "catch 22".
Alan: The question is, is it appropriate to have a conceptual
housing plan before we start finals or just conceptual housing
with the final details on the site plan. I think you are asking
to get into trouble that way.
Welton: I think you can ask too much too soon. In a complicated
process like this the point where they have no way of judging
numbers. They have no way of judging traffic, no way of judging
the whims of the decision-making bodies. Whether or not the
decision making bodies WQuld prefer to see it as caretaker units
on site, how that impacts traffic, the whole gambit of questions.
Alan: I suggest some kind of sequencing. Something subsequent
to conceptual. But do you want to wait until final to see the
first glimpse of the housing plan? It may be wonderful and not
become a concern. If it is unacceptable, you are going to be in
a process where you are dealing with final site plan and the very
basic elements of the housing program for an off-site development
that is going to be a 4 step review process potential.
Parry: When we looked at this conceptually we made a conceptual
decision that #l rather than cash-in-lieu we should provide
housing. The second part was that given the impacts that exist
on the neighborhoods of this site and of these activities that go
on out there that it should not be on site.
30
PZM4.25.89
If you can give us at the conceptual level some direction that
concurs with that or disagrees with that I think there are enough
parameters to come up with a plan. And I think that we are
confident enough about that plan to go ahead into final with it.
Jim: I think we have to agree with off site planning for
employee housing. Given the fact that we are going to agree with
off site employee housing, given the fact that we are going to
agree with off-site planning for employee housing If we take the
proposal of the Meadows property site planning as a separate
issue which is the way we are taking it now and given the fact
that the off-site housing has got to be acceptable to the
community and to this Board it in itself in not being acceptable
in going to reject the plan I think we can go ahead with the
approval of the plan on site in view the proposal of the off-site
housing as a separate issue although it is inherently linked and
we will inherently make the final decision on the plan.
I don't see any problem really in taking a look at the Meadows
site specific program without having a site specific concurrently
running housing program.
Jasmine: I do in that it might be deemed advisable to have some
of the employee housing on site in the form of caretaker units
and some of it off-site. And that would certainly effect the
site specific plan.
I tend to not buy the argument that you should not have employee
housing on-site. In this particular instance I am more in favor
of having it off-site than I usually am because there are so many
other constraints on the "parcel. But I think that from the point
of view of the saleability of the homes if these are going to be
luxury homes that having the existence of caretaker units might
in fact make the property more saleable for the people who are
going to buy and it might be a very good decision for the
developer and for the community. And I think that the inclusion
or lack of inclusion of these on-site is a complicated issue and
that could effect the site planning. I would like to have that
taken into account a little earlier than coming in with it at
final.
Board consensus as to on-site vs. off-site.
Jasmine: I think there are good arguments to be made for both
having some on-site and having none on-site. I don't think there
is anybody here who wants to see it all on-site. But that a mix
might be appropriate or all off-site might be appropriate.
Jim: I would like to suggest we leave it to the applicant to
live and die by their own efforts on this particular issue. If
31
PZM4.25.89
they want to come in with no employee housing plans to file and
fail at that point, it is their coin to toss. If they want to
come in earlier and get some sort of approval, that is fine.
Graeme:
approve
whether
will be
I agree with Jasmine
a design for this site
there is going to be
on-site.
in a sense to design this site or
we need to take into consideration
roughly how many employees there
I think there should be some kind of rough number of how many on-
site employee units there will be here and what is the best both
for the non-profits and for town and try and pin that down. I
understand their problem of not being able to come up with
specific plan off-site but I am not in favor of everything down
to the end. So I think that number needs to be kind of zeroed in
on a little bit. I wouldn't feel real comfortable approving
something when I don't know very much about it.
TRAFFIC
George Vicenzi: I think it is required at the conceptual stage
that a transportation study be submitted. This development is
not in a vacuum. It is in the middle of a residential area. If
I were Aspen I would want to know what the traffic impacts were
now and what new traffic impact would be from the new development
before I made a development. It seems like this is ass
backwards. I am presently working with the Planning and the
Engineering Department and MAA to try and mitigate some of these
problems.
Bleeker and Hallam Street has been used as alternate corridors
east and west for the Main Street. Smuggler Street is also
being used for an alternate corridor when Main Street has a
backup. 3rd, 5th, and 8th streets are at a chronic level. The
parking problem due to the programs at the MAA is at a chronic
level. These are all existing problems that will only be
compounded by any future development down there.
To quote Bill Kane from ancient history of 1976 "From a traffic
point of view single family homes pose the greatest threat to the
west end basically due to the undersized residential streets that
would be used for access to and from town".
Given these facts I have a hard time accepting the fact that you
are taking this application without having an adequate
transportation study. I think since we can't go further with
this until June, it might be better to wait until the traffic
study is done in July which would show what the actual impacts
are at the high season and go from there.
32
PZM4.25.89
I think it would benefit the applicant so he can do a plan that
takes these traffic problems into consideration instead of having
a plan and then have the traffic study show that these plans are
not the most logical for "the land. From the west side's point of
view this is a major consideration--going through the residential
neighborhood.
This also relates to the increased commercial use. If they
expand the amount of units that will be used during the summer
time that they want to use as a skier housing during the winter
time, that will expand the impact plus the houses will also be
used in the winter time. So you are creating a lot more impact
than is there now. And right now we are at a critical level. I
would implore you to put off any conceptual consideration or
approval until an adequate traffic study is presented.
Welton: Are you planning on doing that exactly what George said?
That is providing additional traffic information.
Parry: We are planning on doing it all--the car counters and
stuff in June, July and August. Preparation of the report would
be done in September and should be ready to go in October. That
way we can get full summer scope on it and it will be ready for
the final and it is going to deal with the east portion of the
campus as well as the Meadows road. We intend to work with the
City because there is a. whole new problem on the west end and
that is the result of the backup on traffic at the rush hour
going out of town. People are going down the power plant road on
their way through town.
We were told by Planning to submit a traffic report by March 15.
We went to the city and there were no existing counts for the
summer so we did what we could do but we definitely intend to do
a full blown report.
Bill Kane: I think that everyone--everything that George said is
correct. I would add that I think Francis Street is also become
an east/west alternative to Highway 82.
That kind of Main street overflow phenomenon 5:00 problem where
the traffic starts backing up and people see the line and start
ducking out and diverting through the west end to try to beat the
traffic--that is really a municipal-wide Highway 82 major
transportation planning concern and really deserves to be focused
on. We don't want to sweep that under the rug. I guess it is
not clear to us what roll this particular application plays in
that travel problem.
I sense that even with the additional traffic data--data is
meaningless unless you have a clear understanding of how you
33
PZM4.25.89
intend to use the data. And the first go around by the
consulting firm that did the study starting with January existing
traffic counts and then rorecasted typical trip generations from
the various land uses that are shown here and then evaluated what
the resultant service level was the street level network would
provide and the conclusion was not surprising. It was all
service level "A".
As you know travel studies go from service level A through D. A
is free flowing without any hindrances and 0 is where you have
stop and go traffic. E is probably gridlock. We are going t
gather peak summer travel information and the conclusion is going
to be that even with the projected uses the service level is
going to be service level A. So unless there is a different
focus, I am not sure that the travel study is going to change
much.
By the same token the issues that George is raising are
legitimate issues but they are not engineering concerns. They
don't deal with the service level of the streets. These streets
are all plenty wide. The streets in the west end are all 30 and
40 feet of paving. They have an enormous capacity to deal with
traffic flow. I would submit that the largest problem that we
are having with traffic being diverted through the west end now
is the lack of enforcement on the stop signs. The only reason
Bleeker street is attractive is that everybody blows the stop
signs off. They are insulted that they even have to stop at a
stop sign. So I think a little friendly enforcement may go a
long way in terms of making it a little more uncomfortable.
We are going to go through the drill and we are going to gather
this information and we are going to come back here in July and
talk about it and what it is going to show is that with 4 times
as much development as we are proposing, the service level of the
streets is still going to be shown by any traffic engineer the
service level is A.
Either we have got to change the focus of what that study is
looking for or we need to be given a little better direction.
Alan: The issue is you have got institutions not being served by
an access artery but being served by traditional residential
streets. And is that appropriate and is that a reasonable
traffic character to put through a residential area? We are all
familiar with a school or a hospital that is on an artery where
the traffic goes to it by an artery. Here we are accessing it on
traditional neighborhood streets and do these people have to
expect that level of resldential traffic. We ought to be looking
at alternatives. We ought to be looking at the character of what
it does to the neighborhood. Of course the streets are wide
34
PZM4.25.89
enough to serve the amount of traffic because it is not a full
blown commuting pattern as we all know it.
Bill Kane: Some of those issues then we can actually be focusing
on right now. We don't have to wait till July to talk about it.
Alan:
this.
That is the point.
I do think we can analyze a lot of
Michael: What are we going to do if we find that the traffic
study indicates that the roads somehow are insufficient for the
institute and the non-profits. Are we going to turn around and
tell them they can't be there any more?
Alan: Obviously we are going to look for ways to reduce the
traffic impacts from those.
Michael: It seems to me that 23 more homes can't create that
much more traffic.
Alan: It is not the homes. It is the change in the use pattern
on the property and it is what is there right now.
Michael: But there is a use pattern
any statistics to show what was there
the statistics we get this year to.
is my point. It is not that they
They are already there.
there already. Do we have
last year so we can compare
These impacts exist. This
are creating these impacts.
Alan:
what we
years.
because
A lot of the focus of both transportation and housing is
haven't been accommodating through planning efforts for
Not that 23 hou~es brings it to a whole new increment
it doesn't.
George: What is there now is not acceptable. You have got a
chronic level for the neighborhood. The proposal before you will
increase the level of usage. We just want to make sure that this
present problem is taken into consideration when you consider the
plan needs. It is not a matter of the streets being able to
accommodate the traffic. It is the quality of life in the
neighborhood.
UNMET NEEDS
Welton: I can open here with my feelings on needs. And that is
why start with them now? Nobody else has ever had to meet unmet
needs.
Alan: #1. We have been trying to look to larger and larger
degrees at unmet needs from existing operations. But I think
~,,---
35
PZM4.25.89
more importantly this is an extremely large operation that has
not been historically meeting its needs in terms of either
transportation or affordable housing. The suggestion is, is it
time to do that? I look back at the files and was quite frankly
surprised to find that this had been not only an issue but it was
an assumption that if you didn't look at the increment at all--I
think this idea of looking at the increment is something we have
created in the last few years. I don't know if I am responsible
for that or other people but when they looked at the institute
back in the '75 to '78 period, people were looking at the housing
needs for the operation, period. And there was a percentage of
the operation that was to be housed.
Bill Kane: But in that era there also were no employee housing
generation created.
Gideon: There is 2 elements here. The element of the new and
the element of the existing. Clearly we intend to comply and
meet and not exceed those requirements of the new. But the
burden on the non-profits and the major amount of money that we
have to come up with just to accommodate the renovations and
convert what we have which is barely usable to usable is
requiring the non-profits to go out and raise millions and
millions of dollars. There is no money available. There is not
funding available to in addition to that to try to accommodate
unmet needs that were required in the past. There is no way that
the funds are available for us to meet those additional needs.
Welton: This, to me, seems like the least attractive candidate
on earth to hit up with employee housing generation fees for
needs that were generated 20 years ago.
Jasmine: Well, I disagree. The point of the fact is that
employee housing and the dislocation of residents of this
community is probably the single biggest issue facing this
community right now. And the fact that certain entities did not
provide it before well they didn't provide them before so why
pick on them now? That is a kind of a weak argument. I agree
that obviously you don't. have a lot of money. But somebody is
going to have to pay for this. Everybody is going to have to pay
their share. And I think that the non-profits are going to have
to pay their share just like everybody else is going to have to
pay their share. This is a community wide problem and everybody
has to participate in the solution.
Jim: In less than a year and a half we have had the Ski Corp
expansion of Little Nell's. We have had the Ritz Carlton. We
have had the Hotel Jerome come through here and we have not asked
any of those people to make unmet needs as part of their plan for
the SPA. I have a really difficult time dealing with this
36
PZM4.25.89
particular group who is made a great deal specifically for the
unmet needs of non-profit groups to hit them up for the first
person, the first time, we have picked these people and we just
had a change of use at the Hotel Jerome 2 weeks ago. And we
didn't address unmet needs for things that went on there. I have
a very difficult time picking this particular group for the very
first time.
Michael: I think that this is a community problem. We should
raise taxes to solve it. If we ask these people to do it we are
going to see the Vail Music Associates, the Breckinridge
Institute and wherever Physics can go to another place that has
got a much cheaper surrounding. They just can't afford to do it.
And to ask them to do it is committing suicide.
Bruce: I agree with what Mickey said.
Graeme: I think this is a nit-picky question. I think you have
got to look at the whole plan and try and make it work as best
you can rather than nit-pick about whether the needs were there
before or after.
Alan: Do you feel the same about the unmet transportation
problem?
Welton: Not necessarily.
Jim: Transportation isn't going to be borne strictly by the non-
profits. The transportation problem is going to be borne by the
entire presentation.
Alan: But if we look at this simply in terms
from the 23 residences, the 24 music units, the
be that there were no transportation impacts.
guarantee it.
of the increment
net result would
Next issue. I
Welton: Do you have any problem looking at transportation in the
overall context of transportation.
Bill Kane: I think we have to do that. That is understood.
Parry: As long as we don't get saddled with things like that are
truly community problems.
Jim: The City is going to have to take part in those plans too.
It is a municipal problem as well.
Welton: We, as a Board, cannot have intelligent discussion of
any transportation issues without Roger. That, in and of itself,
means that discussion doesn't happen until July.
37
PZM4.25.89
HPC REVIEW
Welton: This is the one I have strongest feelings about that I
have shared with Bill and with Parry. My little speech is that
we all have stood by and watched victorian architectural heritage
of our house get chewed up by bulldozers over the last 10 years
and primarily over the last 2 years to make room for spec single
family and duplex structures. And I will not stand by and watch
Herbert Bayers' work on the Aspen Institute Campus go for the
same highest and best use single family spec houses. That is
just the way I feel.
Jim: Are we talking about specifically
which exists or are we talking about
architecture that goes on on the project?
the Institute building
HPC review over all
.,.."'......
Bill Kane: There are a lot of ideas that have been raised here.
We have got to go back to the drawing board and see how we can
respond to them. I think that procedurally, I think the thing we
are most interested in is trying to achieve agreement on the
procedure for HPC review. Our recommendation would be that you
don't refer a plan to HPC that does not have a high degree of
possibility for being approved by this commission so that we
don't send something prematurely to them that comes back with
comments and then we get caught in a ping pong game back and
forth between P&Z and HPC.
We have heard the comments about the trustee house. We heard
Welton loud and clear about Herbert's buildings. We have heard
the comments about the conservation lands. There are a lot of
economic calculations to be done here and I think that we are
going to come back with something that tries to address those
issues.
until we get that down on paper and show it to you we could be
raising a tempest in a tea pot here.
Gideon: A concern I have is we have identified an awful lot of
sacred cows. It really puts us in a bind. It is almost like
starving in India because you cant eat the cows. We have got the
conservation. You have go the buyer. We have got all these
areas that are needing to be preserved and I think there has to
be some recognition that you can't be all things to all people.
There are going to have to be compromises in terms of the
Conservation area, conceivably the Bayer property as well as the
5 plans for the 5 important things for the non-profits.
It is great to leave here saying conservation is great and we
want to preserve that. The Bayer residences are great. We have
'~~.>.-'
38
PZM4.25.89
to preserve that and pretty soon there
that we are willing to compromise.
little bit but everybody else is going
no plan to deal with.
has to be an understanding
We are willing to give a
to have to also or we have
Jasmine: Is he trying to say that we have to be reasonable?
Welton: I think so.
Parry: Can we get indication from the other members of the
Commission in regards to when specifically those buildings which
we are considering demolishing on the campus and their
importance?
Welton:
Herbert
the New
Those are the Herbert Bayer trustee houses and the
Bayer Health Center. Both of which will be featured in
York Times within the next month.
Parry: Welton, I appreciate that. We understand exactly where
you are coming from but you are 1 vote on this Commission and we
would just like to hear some direction.
Graeme: I would like to ask somebody from the Institute if they
are functioning well or are they serving a purpose or are they
structurally mechanically in good shape.
Bill Kane: They are all deplorable. The only acceptable uses
that we could use are the Kresge and also the dining room area.
The rest of them are junk. They were built very inexpensively in
1954 or 1955. And I think if Mr. Bayer were alive today he would
say "Let's do something to them." The plumbing is gone. The
reason that Mr. Hadid has to put in some more is so we can USe
them on a very limited basis in the summer time.
We are talking about paint and bubble gum and stuff like that
just to hold them together. The Health Center--5 years after it
was built in 1955--the plumbing all went out. It all had to be
changed. The roof leaked constantly all the time. The sod looks
nice but it is just not a worthwhile building. A long time ago
Bayer told us "Tear it all down. Everything on the campus. Only
save the landscaping." They just are not functional buildings at
this time.
Now I am not speaking for the Institute. The only 3 buildings
that I feel are historical are the Paepcke Building, the seminar
Building and the Boetcher Building. The rest of them any
architect could have done especially the trustee houses. They
were referred to before the vegetation growth as the chicken
coops because they looked like chicken coops.
39
PZM4.25.89
Joe Wells: Something needs to be set straight for the records.
We were totally in the dark on the rating of the buildings. The
history of the rating was in 1986 I think during the period the
property was in receivership. The inventory was re-examined and
at a public hearing these buildings were given the highest rating
available in the city's rating system without regard to an
examination of the buildings--their condition or their structural
condition and without notice to the owners so that the owners
could undertake some sort of inspection of the buildings. So for
the record this was news to us that these buildings were rated
the highest rating in the City's system.
Alan:
rated.
To my knowledge we did provide notice to people that we
I would have to check the records.
Welton: In our latest round of discussion on preservation of
historic structures one of the least credible excuses for
demolition of an historic structure or a structure of this
historic importance, which is what these are, is lack of
maintenance.
"'-
What do the other members of the Commission feel about the
preservation of the 2 Herbert Bayers structures?
Graeme: I personally wouldn't hold up an otherwise good plan to
save them. Although I think that the possibility of refurbishing
them or, I am thinking of the trustee buildings, should be looked
into. I doubt if they could be re-Iocated because they are on
the hillside.
Welton: The trustee houses I think are in remarkably good
condition inside and out. I have only been in a couple of them
within the last few years. Those were designed for that cliff
and they really fit the side of the cliff and they are really
sited beautifully and the architecture is a good example of his
later work.
The Health Center I think if it could be moved--the Gage Davis
site plan showed a health center located adjacent to the
restaurant. I think that is a possibility but Parry said moving
the trustee houses over to the north cliff--well those houses
were very sensitively sited to the west cliff and to the Castle
Creek Valley. And I don't think they would work anywhere else.
I think the gym could be moved. Your access road is going down
in roughly the location of the access road goes in front of those
houses now.
Graeme: Would it make any sense to try and have some HPC people
go up there and make some kind of an assessment and advise us? I
40
PZM4.25.89
am not even familiar with the Chalet Building so I don't feel
confident in making a judgment.
Bill Kane: I think the HPC review really ought to come at the
end of this planning process with P&Z. You really just introduce
another whole cast of characters into the discussions.
Graeme: The only buildings that you are talking about--Bayer
Buildings are the trustee buildings to potentially demolish and
the Health Center. I would like to go over there and have a
better look at the buildings and such before I felt confident.
Jim: I feel that the completion of a good plan for the community
hits upon a note where we are creating a smithsonian Institute
here for buildings which would--elements of his architecture have
been displayed better and are in better condition and that these
elements themselves if Herbert Bayer were alive today would
probably say "You either present some of my best standing work"
--I don't think that I would let them stand in the way of a
community benefit and plan.
Michael: I agree with Jim.
h,,,"'
Bruce: with apologies to you and Mr. Bayer I certainly would not
hold up the plan for those trustee houses or the Health Club. I
also should say that I wouldn't hold up the plan for song birds
over the MAA. If it comes down to that I am for the MAA instead
of the song birds in the environmentally sensitive area.
Jasmine: I don't feel' as strongly as Welton does about the
preservation of the Bayer architecture. On the other hand since
I don't presume to speak to get these messages from beyond the
grave as to what Bayer himself would have wanted, I don't think
that is a relevant point of discussion either. Who knows what he
would have wanted?
I think that to the extent possible that you can renovate,
bolster or use in any way those houses or perhaps moving the
Health Center--I think that should be done.
I also think that the trustee houses which mayor may not be in a
state of good repair are particularly well suited to their
location. And that comes into site planning issue that although
your current plan does not show houses in that configuration in
that location, I think that is a good use of the site. so I
think it might be a good idea to explore using those houses where
they are because it makes sense from other points of view. I
would just like to see you take that into account.
41
PZM4.25.89
Welton: I think I spoke for myself. We have discussed all the
issues. Do you feel you will have enough to tide you through the
spring vacation?
Parry: We have plenty of clear guidelines.
Jasmine: I will move that we continue this public hearing to
date of June 13, 1989.
Michael seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was
Janice M.
.~,..",..
42