Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900306 ~~CJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 6. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton was absent and Michael Herron was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: We just got the final report from Kaiser Engineers. There is not too much in the way of changes. There are additions and that is basically what their recommendations are. In a nutshell their recommendation is given the time we are in and to get a transportation system in really as fast as possible and as economically as possible. The recommendation would be to go with the Rio Grande ROW from Aspen on down including within Aspen. It also identified an optional--2 other optional ROWs. One coming in on Main street and then one coming in over about an equivalent bridge but then ducking up and picking up the Midland ROW. I pointed out to Tom Baker that that option was going to come and it may not be an initial option but it would still be certainly a future phase possibility. And so I asked about designating the Midland ROW a transportation corridor again. Tom: What I would suggest we do is I come back to P&Z with a resolution identifying the options that Kaiser--right now the transportation plan identifies the Rio Grande. It doesn't identify the 2 other options that Kaiser has come up with--Main street and the Midland. This resolution would ask the city council to endorse the amendment to the plan both the city and the county. This amendment would recognize the recommendations for 2 other options for the rail system. We would ask both P&Zs to forward it to the elected officials for endorsement and then we would come back for adoption. It would be an official amendment to the long range transportation element. MOTION Roger: I would move that we request the Planning Office draft a resolution designating the corridors identified in the Kaiser final report to adopt those as transportation corridors. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. { PZM3.6.90 Roger: On March 20th the trolley consultants will be in town available for public presentation of the trolley study. I know they are going to be here the 20th and 21st. I would like them to meet with this Board in order to present that study to us. MOTION Roger: I make a motion requesting the planning Office put the trolley study on the agenda starting the regular meeting of March 20 at 4:00pm and please call us to inform us. Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Asked for a special meeting on the 13th of March. It was decided to hold a special meeting on the 27th instead. Leslie: Roger, on the elephant ear at Little Nell: Chuck Roth will check with Rocky Whitford who is the traffic control office to check into this and report back to you. I have talked with Fred Gannet and Jim Adamski regarding non- compl iance whenever we do conditions of approval. The Hous ing Authority has their own enforcement that when we get deed restrictions they have the ability to enforce that contract. But Fred agreed that he would be at our next regularly scheduled meeting on the 20th for initial comments on that. Kim: Regarding Fisherman's Easements I have a memo into Sandy for a response. As far as the City's legal responsibilities are on the other trail systems and what might be a 5ft Fisherman's Easement. When I hear back from her I will report to you. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES FEBRUARY 6. 1990 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of February 6, 1990. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. '''~,..... 2 PZM3.6.90 LITTLE CLOUD SUBDIVISION DETAILED SUBMISSION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Ellen Sassano, Planner: Made presentation as attached. Wayne Ethridge: Made presentation using drawings. Ellen: I didn't mention trails on the site which would be something you would be interested in. One of the issues that came up in the general submission review was the Trail from Shadow Mountain Trail location. And the applicant has asked to relocate the trail off of the existing Midland ROW alignment to the north property line. He indicated that that alignment would hold snow better and actually be better for a Nordic use and also be better in terms of landscaping. The applicant also agreed to have a separate grade where the trail intersects the road. So that alignment has been moved at the request of Al Blomquist. The applicant is also proposing a trail which will connect the ski mountain to cross the property to adjacent property up on the upper level of the site. And in addition there is a third hiking trail between the Shadow Mountain trail and the higher ski trail which is being proposed by the applicant and it will cross somewhere up above the homes connecting adj acent property to Little Cloud Park. Those 3 are being proposed by the applicant. The County Engineer had some concerns with the location of the Shadow Mountain Trail on the Midland ROW. He was concerned that in the event that that ROW is ever used for light-- Ethridge: It is not a ROW. Ellen: I was going to state that--that there might be some conflict. Wayne has indicated that the ROW was long ago abandoned. That is something that hasn't been thoroughly addressed at this point. Gary Wright: As a point of clarification, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to dedicate those trail easements. Ethridge: They are really not part of the 8040 Greenline Review discussion. In essence the proposal was to dedicate the connection across the property. The problem with both the trail coming off Norway and the trail across here and also the Midland Trail is that dimensions don I t exist. wi th the case of the Midland it is pretty clear in working with Al and the Planning staff that we can dedicate an easement based on the current 3 PZM3.6.90 design and the commitment is to provide an easement based on a connection through the private property that exists between this proposal and the Aspen Mountain and also the private property between Koch Lumber and across above where these home sites are located. So that is the commitment and it was made voluntarily. Welton: Why is it necessary to build on historic railroad ROW? Ethridge: There is no historic railroad ROW as far as that goes. Welton: Why is it necessary to build on the old ROW that I used to ski across? Ethridge: originally there was no proposal to do that. In working with Al in the neighborhood there were some opportunities to move it back onto the site. We relocated the trail so that we can get a below grade crossing for cross country skiing. They allowed us to do that. The house was pulled back slightly because the trail was running right along the old ROWand in moving the trail we had an opportunity to move the home out which provides better views and a little more sun. Al Blomquist: When we reviewed the original for the neighborhood the Council was going to acquire from Mr. Reeder an 18ft strip of land in front of Butch Clark's houses that Reeder owned when he bought it from BLM through the Forest Service. And Council was at that time going to acquire land in the Gramiger area. And Parks Association and others came in and said "Why don't you go finish this part from Koch Lumber over to Little Cloud", and Ron Mitchell started to negotiate. Reeder has a building site right where the Midland surface is. The reason this is referred to the city by the County is we want co-operation along the edges. And so when I made my recommendations for the neighborhood it was that let's get a trail and let's get a grade separation for the driveway and it looked like it was possible because the City was going to buy this yellow. That was the assumption. Those negotiations fell through. And in the meantime they went to final submission on the Tucker project. My recommendations were yes you could slide this off when we saw it the house was over here. It was not on the ROW. until and if the Reeder land were owned by the City connecting through to Little Cloud here and to our parcels in here then it would make sense to drop the trail under his driveway through the trees into the park. That would be marvelous. Then this driveway would be grade separated and Tucker has indicated he will build the bridge. 4 PZM3.6.90 However to let out from under the bridge you would have to go up onto Reeder's land. That would be a cliff. It has got to be graded out, landscaped and all these other things done. So from the neighborhood standpoint and I would say from Park's Association standpoint the problem is the City should be getting this acquired or should have some method for guaranteeing that when this is developed that if a house is going here there is a trail through there somehow. It is a matter of city and County co-operation with not just Tucker but with Reeder as part owner. It would be my inclination to say that this house should not go across the historic trail unless the City has this kind of property here. His building envelope drops over the top of the existing trail. Ethridge: I have a problem with this whole discussion because this is to be 8040 Greenline Review and we are now into the whole system. Welton: Trails are one of the criteria for 8040 Greenline. They always have been. Ethridge: The point is that we are proposing to provide the trail access and if there is a better way to get there then let's talk about it. There was discussion as to the usage of the name "Little Cloud". Roger brought up the problem in this area of rock shoots. Ethridge: We followed pierce's recommendation. There is a parapet wall on the downhill side of the road that extends through here and through here with the exception of this opening right here and of course the heavier trees are above this side but this whole area is protected by a parapet wall 2ft high. Roger: Officially I have got to let the County P&Z know I question whether this is sufficient. Roger: My next problem of the superimposing #1 on what used to be the ROW. And I understand your position that that ROW has long since been abandoned as a ROW. First of all you may have about 10 minutes more of sun by moving it out that far. You are right at the base of Shadow Mountain and basically you lose the sun about 2:00pm in the winter time. So that is not too good an argument not to nestle it back into the hill. 5 PZM3.6.90 ""... As far as the massing of it we are going to have 6,000sqft per house. I would like to reduce the mass of these houses as much as possible by nestling them within the hill. In effect that house looks like it has been put out more or less as prominent as possible. I don't know what we are going to do ROW wise because what Al Blomquist brings up--they are going to the Kaiser study identifying the option of using the old Midland. That was good because it got you basically up to Durant Avenue. Al Blom~ist's version basically gets you up to Cooper st which 1S not particularly a good transportation corridor. I think we should notify the County P&Z that that is a problem. We are trying to adopt that as a transportation corridor so I don't where that is going to work out. Hans Gramiger: My biggest concern is that this project started as 201 Cooper and they discovered that that doesn't sell very good. So they go next door and take the name of a city owned property. I really strongly object that they are going to call this Little Cloud Subdivision. Ellen: We will look into this. Welton: There is no City ordinance that name from a mining claim. There condominiums all around town that have different mining claims. says they can't use the are subdivisions and picked out names from Jon Busch: I would like to indicate to you the importance of preserving the Midland ROW as an option of alignment to bring the downvally rail system in. In Kaiser's opinion the southern ROWs are ultimately better ROWs to come into town because they serve Brush Creek and Snowmass Village better--the Airport Business Center better than the existing Rio Grande ROW. They recommended the Rio Grande ROW because one of the goals is to get into Aspen with a rail system prior to highway construction. There are several unknowns regarding the Rio Grande ROW. One is the cost. Whether or not it is necessary to replace sewer line and if so what is that going to cost. Second what is the potential for extensive litigation with Pitkin Green homeowners. If either of those things prove to be insurmountable then clearly either a Main Street alignment which has significant problems or a Midland ROW alignment are the preferred routs to come in. The Midland ROW probably being most preferred because it comes in to the Rubey Park Transit Center. 6 PZM3.6.90 If a house goes on that alignment it precludes that from ever happening. It wipes it off the map. So I think you really need to lean on the County and all the government bodies very strongly to prohibit the placement of that homesite. Welton: I basically reiterate what Roger said and what Jon has said as this commission has always been on record both in the subdivision of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and the Shapery Property some 10 years ago that the existing historic railroad ROW, whether existing or not, is of value and should be preserved because we never know what could happen as far as future potential uses for them. without regard to current ownership that purposely planning development owned as property is very short range thinking in terms of what this commission has historically done. Jasmine: I agree. ASPEN YOUTH CENTER FINAL SPA PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Skip Behrhorst has just given me the outline of their budget and their 2 year proposed budget. Staff is recommending the Youth Center pay for 1/3 of what it costs to prepare the final plat. The trash service area on the plan is located away from the building and down where--(showed on map) I am recommending that they do that. We are recommending that bike racks be installed and that the east elevation of the building be rethought. My feeling is that this is a 4 sided building and all 4 sides are very visible and that the east elevation has been treed like the back side of the building for a portion of it and that more landscaping should be provided and more sod work for that east elevation. Both the Environmental Health Dept and the Engineering Dept have mentioned that the Youth Center is located right next to where the exhaust vent is going to be for the parking garage. We have asked them to address that and identify how they are going to mitigate that potentially dangerous situation. 7 draft subdivision agreement appropriate financial guarantee required utilities. 5. A development schedule including proposed public facilities the developer is proposing to construct. requires the provision of an to insure the installation of all RESPONSE: A schedule is unavailable for the construction of individual homes. The applicants propose to construct the access driveway and install the various utility and drainage improvements during the spring and summer of 1990. 6. Compliance with the conditions of conceptual approval. RESPONSE: This has been discussed in Part I. 7. Preliminary elevations and drawings of proposed public facilities. RESPONSE: The applicants have indicated the public trail easement on the parcel. 8. Architectural sketch indicating floor plans and all exterior elevations of any building. RESPONSE: These are unavailable. However the applicants will incorporate restrictive covenants, to be recorded with the final subdivision agreement, restricting building materials to wood siding, non-reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to compliment the residences in the Callahan Subdivision. 9. A Landscaping Plan. RESPONSE: A landscape plan has been submitted for the area outside of the building envelopes. Landscaping within each envelope will be dictated by the design of each residence. 10. Slope analysis. RESPONSE: plat. Slope calculations have been included on the final 11. An open space plan. RESPONSE: There will be no common open space. 12. A final plat. RESPONSE: A final plat has been included in the application. Please see Engineering referral #4 for items necessary to be included on the plat. ,"- 8 PZM3.6.90 the west elevation, the massing and detailing is really the same except for the use of glass. So I don't quite understand that comment. I think that I need to get with Bob Gish talking about what exactly the schedule is for some of the Spring Street improvements in terms of getting our final hookups and things tied into the street before they do the paving work down there. Obviously the Youth Center Board would rather have their approval prior to spending a lot of money on taps and things like that. The irrigation system--there is no problem. Once the kitchen plan is designed we would be glad to submit the food service plan. There is no wood stove or fireplace anticipated. control plan we would make a requirement for the contractor. And the dust construction We are well aware of the exhaust problem related to the parking structure. In talking to our mechanical engineers it is our intention to have any mechanical intake vents that we need located on the opposite side of our building. The problem that we have had is any definitive data on exactly what the parking structure is likely to be pumping out. Their comment to us is that if the discharge from the parking structure is legal then we shouldn't have any problem. Glenn Horn: This is not that big a deal right now. sharing of the final plat--we suggest that the cost be shared proportionally based upon the amount of entire SPA. But the cost of that plat land in the Then with respect to the employee housing mitigation fee: We have requested that the easy way for this project would be is, in fact, going to be applied to this particular development. The employee on this site is going to be a middle income or moderate income person and not a low income person. Based upon the affordable housing guidelines the fee should be $15,000 for middle income person and $20,000 for a moderate income employee and not $30,000. We are requesting that the fee be waived based on the concept that this project has limited resources. It is a non-profit organization. But if you are going to recommend that a cash in lieu fee be charged to the applicant we think it would be more equitable that that fee be $15,000 based upon the middle income. Skip Behrhorst: We intend to snowmelt the entrance on the Plaza level. The steps down adjacent to the parking garage are being 9 PZM3.6.90 installed by the parking garage contractor. Those will be snowmelted. Basically all of the entries that we have that tie into the parking structure that have snowmelting we will have snowmelted. Welton then asked for public comment. Jon Bush. I commend the applicants in terms of preserving the trolley corridor. In fact they have not only preserved it but they have improved the grade significantly giving us a solid 7% grade. Gary: The current jail entry slab sits on grade. As a part of construction we are going to have to build a retaining wall to basically hold that up. Part of the problem in providing the improved grades is that the elevation of the bike path needs to drop sooner than it currently drops. Currently it can't start going down till after it passes by the jail entry and we have picked up another couple of feet. So it would be our intention that the retaining wall that holds up the jail slab would be the Youth Center's responsibility. The second set of steps that we have going up to the entry in talking to Bob Braudis I don't think we are going to be required. We will probably eliminate those since there is no need for them. Glen Rappaport: I was at the PRP meeting. If you wanted to encourage growth and development and exploration in your teenagers, would you put them between the Courthouse, the jail and the parking garage and expect them to flourish? I have a problem with that. Then would you put them into something that looks like a country club? To me--I would put them in a gas station or something like that and let them figure some things out for themselves. There are just too many things figured out about this site and about this building. Cory Dunn: I am on the Board for the Youth Center. One important point is that this is the only thing that we have had. Aspen has for a long time had a name of being a place--a night life--a fast-laner. And this is our main spot. Before this the possibility was hanging out in front of McDonald's. And I think that the atmosphere of the proposed Youth Center is a lot better. It stops the use of substances and that is one of our main goals- -a lot more than somewhere out on the mall. This is going to be our place and we are working for it. It really doesn't matter where we are as long as we have somewhere. It doesn't matter if we are between the jail and the parking structure. 10 PZM3.6.90 Mia Sullivan, Board of Directors for the Youth Center: I would like to say that if you put a bunch of kids in a gas station they are going to do wrong. But if we have something like this where we can go to--a specific place with organization then we will have opportunities and we will have things to do. Cory: One thing I might add is that the Youth Center is going to act as a center to pull other activities together. it we can plan trips to Red Rocks and different activities. also From Rick Head: This is an generate 1 I would hope that P&Z will waive the $15,000 fee. extremely worthwhile amenity to the community and will employee. Joe Wells: I try to avoid commenting on other applications because of what I do. But I feel like I paid for part of this land. No one can question the need for a Youth Center. I just think we are ignoring some really important land use issues on the Rio Grande property with this particular site. The parking structure extends a visual wall down the Galena street access that really starts to interrupt the visual link between the downtown and the river. I realize we have never done anything with the river. We are trying to change that. My feeling about this particular site is it is a site choice that is being made out of desperation rather than a site that makes sense from a land use standpoint. Basically it completes the wall of the buildings between Main street and the river so that we really don't have a visual link anymore from Main Street down to the river. I feel so strongly about it I would love to see this building picked up and put on top of the parking structure at this point. We are down to 16ft now and we have pedestrians and trolleys and that is 2 identified uses already competing for that last little sliver of space and there is no opportunity to see down to the river and pull people down to the river anymore. Anyone who has tried to walk down Mill Street knows that is not a particularly pleasant experience. So I just wish we would take a deep breath here and find a site that works for this use. Welton: And where were you a year ago? Bill Dunaway: I don't know what Joe Wells is talking about. You stand on Main street and you have got the bank and the Courthouse and you do have a view right across the Plaza. The buildings existing on Main Street comes right here and the Youth Center isn't in that view. - 11 PZM3.6.90 Wells: Go stand on the corner of Galena and Main street and try to see the river over the parking structure. You cannot do it. Dunaway: Well, fine. You can't see the river over the parking structure. But the Youth Center isn't going to block the view. Gary: I might point out that we specifically did some discussions and some studies and the elevator tower on the parking structure is what blocks the view. And our building from the point that he just mentioned is behind and lower than the stair tower and elevator shaft of the parking structure that is already in place. So we are not blocking the view of anything. Welton: And I was the one who had a problem with the stair tower or elevator and the access of Galena Street. Behrhorst: Regarding the comment that this was a desperation kind of location: It is really contrary to that. The surveys that we did with the kids 2 years ago this was identified. The scenario was that it seemed to be the ideal location. # 1, because of the location of the Library, the playing fields, the transportation system link and the parking garage. It seemed to be an ideal location as related to access to town and pretty central to kid's activities. So it was not just an afterthought. The survey that the kids did really pointed to that location. Roxanne: I am the project manager for the pedestrian walkway and bikeway plan that 2 of you are on. And one of the real concerns that the consultant has already identified is the Hunter Creek/Centennial moving people down into through the park area up into town and looking at this as the last space where that happens. So I want to bring that up as being very critical to properly design to include all of that in there as opposed to the Mill Street access or over this way. This is it. And we have exactly what Joe said. There is now a line of buildings here that may effectively block off any kind of pedestrian flow up into town. And we have to very cautiously guard this very small area that is left to make sure that it functions the way that we have talked about. Welton: I always thought there are at least as many ways of getting down that bank with the buildings on it than there were when it was just a bank. At least as many ways, stairways and pathways of getting from the level of town to the level of the Rio Grand with the building in place as it was when it was a just a dirt bank. Ian Smith, youth representative: I was going to say that I think that this is the only place for the Youth Center in Aspen. A gas station can't fulfil the roll. A youth center is ideal for the l2 PZM3.6.90 use because it fulfils the roll of being the only place in Aspen for the youth. Also the Rio Grande location, as Skip said, in the student surveys a lot of the students said it would be an ideal location for the youth center. I don't see where else they are going to put it without making it hard to get back into the downtown area. I think this location is great for a Youth Center. Welton asked if there were any more public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: To me the Rio Grande is for transportation but I am willing to compromise and let a Youth Center be here. I appreciate the fact that the grade is better. But if I had my druthers I would really rather nestle that building into the parking structure to open up more of the path and to open up the feeling of the bicycle path and hopefully a trolley so that at least you are not going down a tunnel on that side. You are already going down a tunnel down the western side of the building and I really question whether that little bit of dirt that you have a few trees planted in there will function. It seems to me there is space to move that building over. I would actually like to see the building almost cover that walk so that or a glass over the walk so that in the summer time people going down it could see out but on the other hand in the winter time it is somewhat protected from the elements and it would make that a more usable walkway if that were done. I would really like to see the trail side of the building opened up slightly and it would also be an opportunity to if you gain a few more feet over there maybe it would be interesting to have a few more windows on that side of the building. Gary: I would note that the PPRD wanted us to shove it the other direction. We have got 2 paths that we have to deal with and we tried to the extent that we could to accommodate both. I don't think that we can go closer to the parking building and then maintain any level of planting or softness. Secondly we run into a building code problem in terms of literally separation between types of occupancy and the ability to have anv openings on the west side if we get any closer to the parking structure. So the option of going closer is really not open for us anyway. Bruce: Have the City and County formally agreed to lease the land to the applicant? Leslie: Yes. Fred pierce for the applicant and Fred Gannett for the City are working together on the lease. 13 PZM3.6.90 Bruce: Regarding the current status of your fund raising efforts. Can you give us a report on that? Behrhorst: I can say that we have a significant amount of money committed. We are confident that we are going to and that is the Board that has been set up as a basic fund raising board. Bruce: Do you have a letter back from the Feds granting you 501C3 status? Behrhorst: It should be back in a couple of days. Bruce: I read the operating budget proposing a budget of $125,000 a year plus . Have you really thought about what it takes to raise $125,000 a year or to endow at a level that will fund that kind of operation? Behrhorst: We are going to approach--the fund raising that we are doing right now is to raise 2 years operating cost. Our intention is to do one of 4 things. To set up an endowment that would be community funded to support the annual operating costs. Possibly go through a district tax or a combination of that and annual fund raising. We would like to avoid that. We would like to attain a more permanent funded operating posture vs going back to the community every year. We feel that 2 year period will allow us to either develop a taxing district or an endowment. Graeme: I agree that I think the housing fee ought to be waived because I think this is a project that is a community benefit. I also agree that it would be unfair to have them pay a third of surveying of the whole area. I feel that there are some technical problems mainly because I think it is on the wrong site but I feel we have fought that battle and it has been decided. But I think it is a very difficult site for those reasons but it is the site for the building. I think a rectilinear building doesn't allow the pathway, the bikeway, the trolley, the circulation to happen and maybe some of that circulation could happen through the building. Perhaps the building could be angled. Perhaps there could be a sacrifice in the square footage of the floor area of the building to do that. But I don't think it fits the site. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to rezone and provide final SPA development and subdivision approval with the conditions as listed on Planning Office memo dated March 6, 1990 with conditions being #1, #2, #3, #4 as on the memo with #4a being changed to "The Youth Center shall share the cost of the Rio Grande final SPA plat proportionally based on the land area with 14 PZM3.6.90 the other applicants in the SPA. #4b the same, #4c the same, #4d the same, #4e, the housing mitigation fee shall be exempted, #4f the same, #5, #6, #7 and #7 the same. Bruce: I will make that motion. Roger: I would consider seconding it if--the thing I have a problem with is exactly what Graeme has a problem with and that is that heavy restriction at the trail end. If we could get something like another 2ft away from the trail by about a length of 5ft just to open up that corner. That would make it a lot more acceptable for me. Graeme: Could we have it as a part of this motion that they re- study the--I don't think it is a facade thing. I don't think putting more glass in or changing the facade itself is what is really needed. Welton: I think the problem is most difficult at the southeast corner and the only functions inside of the building that--the building is basically symmetrical in all 4 directions. There is no rule that says it has to be the same thing on all 4 corners. The only thing in that corner are the bathrooms. Bathrooms could be configured differently to respond to a site rather than just taking a rectilinear symmetrical in four on 2 axis. Gary: The lower floor is no problem. part that is underground at that point. lower floor is not an issue at all. We can leave the bottom So the footprint of the Roger: So maybe it is just 10ft we are looking at in that corner that may do the trick. Welton: The motion that I entertained that Bruce moved on, I would add also condition #9 to that motion that the approval is conditioned on further re-study of the pedestrian/trolley corner between the jail and the Youth Center and that the re-study be done to improve the space between the opening. Graeme: To me the east side of the building sort of ignores the fact that there is walkway. Maybe there shouldn't even be an entrance off of that bike path. Gary: For the record if your are coming up from Spring Street there is an entry on the lower level off that path and if you are coming down from Main Street the main entry of the building so I don't see any need for any entry literally into these facades. There is also an entry off the mid level of the parking structure directly into the building. 15 PZM3.6.90 Welton: What Graeme is saying if you are walking down there you are looking at a stucco and a brick wall or you are looking at a little tiny post office box windows. And the jail--you are looking at a brick wall--that's it, and rightly so. This facade perhaps should be more pedestrian scale and not just ignored because it is face to face with a brick wall. This would be condition #9. Bruce: I amend my motion. Roger: I amend my second. Does that #9 include a restudy of the elevations to get more space in that critical area where the trail, possible trolley etc. comes down--to the degree of 2ft or more. Behrhorst: One of the requirements relates to what we agreed to do for the city and that was providing public bathrooms in this building. When they designed the parking structure, they did not accommodate that at that level. Graeme: Maybe that should be looked at. There is a whole Plaza here where maybe they should be somewhere else and it would free this building up. Maybe that is the solution. I would like to add into the motion that it be restudied whether the public bathrooms need to be included in this building. Why are the public bathrooms jammed into this building which is already jammed into this whole thing? I think that should be re- studied. Gary then showed P&Z on drawings placement of bathrooms. Bruce amended his motion to include studying the placement of public bathrooms elsewhere in the building. Roger amended his second. , Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine. COLLINS BLOCK SPECIAL REVIEW. GMOS EXEMPTION & CONDo USE PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. What you are reviewing here is it is GMQS exemption to enlarge an historic landmark. They are adding floor area and net leasable. 16 PZM3.6.90 They are also requesting that the 2 free market units for condominiumization and then a conditional use by P&Z as required to make these 2 units a short term rental situation first and deed restricting them for 6 months. There also is going to be special review to increase the floor area beyond 1.5 which is what is allowed but because we are adding affordable housing they are seeking special review to increase the floor area up to 1.77. They are also asking for a reduction in the trash service area which will now be located (showed on map) and a special review for parking reduction. They intend to have special review for parking reduction for affordable units and dedicate the 2 parking spaces that will be included in the development of the land parcel with the new commercial infill. Residential units and historic landmark are not required to provide parking. staff recommends approval of the proposal. Our City Council passed the ordinance and the idea of condominiumization and the lot line adjustment at first reading but they really didn't discuss it. staff recommends approval of the enlarging. Approval of conditional use for the short term rentals and approval of the reduction of the parking. However, the staff did not recommend reduction in the trash in the service area. We are recommending that 1 of the units be deed restricted to moderate and 1 be restricted to income. In the code where it enables them to go above 1.5 and gets this extra floor area it says that they only have to deed restrict the units to moderate income but this is going to 1.33 to 1.5 and they have to mitigate employee housing for that portion. Therefore we are recommending deed restricting 1 unit to low income. Jasmine: I don't understand how this affects the employee housing mitigation for the commercial area of the project. If you are going to increase the commercial area there should be an increase of the employee generation. Leslie: To go from 1.33 to 1.5, they are generating 1.69. When you are eligible and you ask to increase your floor area and you go beyond 1. 5 the requirement is that 40% of that extra floor area be dedicated to employee housing and you are not required by code to mitigate then that additional 40%. They are applying to provide 2 2-bedroom affordable units which really ____mumble___. Welton: Does the applicant have any problems with the conditions that were outlined by the Planning Office. 17 PZM3.6.90 Joe Wells: In general we have 2 issues to discuss. One is the trash service and the other is simply a timing issue of the phasing of the construction. We haven't started working drawings on the affordable housing building because we don't know if we are going to achieve final approval so the working drawings for that project are going to drag behind a month or two and we would like to find some other way other than waiting for that project to be ready for permit to be able to proceed with the rest of the project realizing that we can't take occupancy of this space until we get the CO on the affordable housing units. That is your recommended condition #1. She is suggesting that we not get a permit for that until we can pull a permit for the 2 affordable housing units. We just can't get a CO for any of that space until we get a CO for the 2 affordable housing units or we can't record or condominium plat for the residential units until we get a CO for the affordable housing units. Welton: Your suggestion is to change condition #1 to read instead of the building permits being issued simultaneously that the CO be issued simultaneously. Joe: That is one alternative, yes. Harley Baldwin, applicant: This is a slightly more complicated issue. The Alpine Bank has just put that section of the block under contract so Donnelley's property is going to be developed. That building sits kind of strategically on the site it turns here egress for trash and I have talked to the Alpine Bank about maybe throwing my lot into their stew so they could more intelligently plan that area. What they would give me back would be 2 employee housing units that I would need and parking and the trash. The trouble is that in order to occupy my commercial area and the 2 apartments I have got to get this done. And I wonder if there is any mechanism that I could put up a bond saying that these 2 employee housing units would be built within the year or something like that. Welton: We have for a number of years talking about creating the ideal trash zone district. Harley: That is the ugliest alley in Aspen. Welton: And doing something on a block-wide basis for this whole alley. It makes sense to work out some mechanism like that. We cannot do that in the course of a meeting like this. It should 18 PZM3.6.90 have been brought up prior to meeting in the application and been given to staff for them to digest and make a recommendation. On condition #l--changing it to the CO rather than the issuance of a building permit would allow possibility timewise making the triggering mechanism happen at the end of the process rather than in the beginning of the process. And there is no reason why elements of this cannot be brought in with another applicant for an amendment to this approval later on with these conditions just being amended. None of us care how this is done. Just as long as when those shops are opened that employee housing is in place. And whether it happens here or whether it happens on top of their building-- it should happen here-- Harley: I understand that but the problem would be I would have to open those stores. Jasmine: You cannot open the stores until he employee housing is in place. Welton: That is what the condition is going to be. You could come in with an amendment. Harley: Is it amenable that we could buy someplace else? Jasmine: No! Welton: If it is conceivable that it could be amended sometime during the course of construction but when more is know about the disposition of the other properties. Jasmine: I want to make one thing very clear though. When the increase in the FAR is tied to the fact that there is employee housing on site--that part is not negotiable. That is the way it reads and you can't adjust it that much and I think it would be misleading to you to make you think otherwise. Harley: We agree to that completely. We are just suggesting that because there is a possibility of solving all these trash and utility back there that there could be a delay hiatus of 6 months or a year at the outside because there is that building there. I am complete. They are just starting into the planning process now. I can't wait for them to finish their planning process to get my CO. Then there is never the opportunity again of solving this whole problem for the alley. Jasmine: to have All that we are really concerned about is that we have an assurance of the timeliness of the occupancy of 19 PZM3.6.90 employee units on that site for which you have gotten the FAR bonus in a timely manner which means coincident with the COs for the commercial space. Part of the problems that we have been having in this town has to do with the lag between the construction of the impact items and the construction of those things to mitigate the impact. And we just can't continue allowing that to happen. Joe Wells: I think we have to find a creative way to come back in with an amendment and stay on track and on schedule. Harley: I would take a 3 bedroom apartment at the Cresta Haus and I say "All right for the next year if there wa s hiatus that is the employee housing". Jasmine: You don't get the FAR bonus. Joe: We understand that there has to be 60% on site FAR square footage of affordable housing. Leslie: I think that by tying it to CO it gives us that window to work on an idea and come back with something. Roger: service or what I don't understand what is happening here as far as access to the alley either under this existing proposal may happen in the future. Joe: without an approval of course linking the 2 parcels together there is no solution. Roger: parcel alley. In other words right now you have no easement in the D there to get you from your building directly to the Right? Joe: Yes. What this lot line adjustment will do in effect is make these 2 parcels 1 so that we can then have (using drawings) The is the Lane parcel building on roughly an 1,100sqft site. This is the alley here to the south. What we plan to do if we establish contiguity between the 2 sites which occurs right here and the Collins Block is over here is to have a 200sqft trash service area here directly off the alley in compliance with the requirement. We have to talk about the amount of square footage to be provided. But that is the solution. Roger: OK, but your only access to that from the main building is around the street and down the alley. Joe: At the present time that is correct. 20 PZM3.6.90 Harley: We hope to be dealing with that as well as part of our deal with the bank. Roger: And you realize the limitation that puts on the use of your property as far as restaurants are concerned. Joe: We understand that as a problem. But it is a better solution than what we have right now which at the present time the Collins Block has no~ alley frontage whatsoever. Roger: Well, hopefully it will go through and you can start taking care of that so you can get better access. Graeme: I think the applicant has said he is willing to post a bond to do something. I think there is probably a better design solution here that in the long run would be a lot better and maybe if this means by you if he supplies 3 units a year instead of 2 over at the Crestahaus or something like that-- Jasmine: No. That would not satisfy. Employee units on sit are not Crestahaus units. I am sorry. Welton: At this time I think the only thing we can vote on is the application that is before us. If that application is amended down the road and we can discuss it at that time. We can't anticipate what an application might be at this time. We can vote on what is in front of us. Bruce: Does the applicant buy into the affordable units being 1 moderate and 1 low? Joe: We can accept that. Welton: The first item you had hinging the building permit to co. one of the conditions? a problem with was with the You had another problem with Joe: The extent of the trash service area and it is really not listed as one of the conditions at the bottom but it is mentioned right up above of the recommendation. What I want to do is talk to about the problem we are faced with. We obviously had only a limited amount of alley frontage to deal with. Several different issues--one being we would like to maintain a couple of parking spaces. But we certainly want to deal with the trash issue that the City wants a 4x4 pedestal easement now and all this has to be dealt with in that very limited amount of alley frontage. Leslie wants you to require us to provide 300sqft of trash storage. We can do that only by stealing space from the storage area that is behind the trash area as identified on the plan. I 21 PZM3.6.90 guess I question the benefit of having a deeper trash storage area because we would have to double up on the dumpsters. What I would like to do is do a comparison to the Mill street Plaza building because I don't believe there is a special magic--just for comparison purposes that is a 30,000sqft structure which is half again as large as our structure. They have 2 large restaurants. This project has one restaurant. They are down to 185sqft of trash service but because of it's proportions they can't accommodate more than 3 dumpsters. We have 175sqft of trash service but by virtue of how it is laid out we can accommodate 5 dumpsters. I personally believe that is an adequate amount. WE can double up on the dumpsters by extending back into that storage space but I don't know how you load them-- Roger: Did you say there is a restaurant in this project? Joe: Yes. There is a restaurant in the basement. Roger: Isn't it in the code that a restaurant has to have direct acces to an alley for service? I thought we had that code modification. Joe: It is about 75% complete. So-- Roger: Tough! Leslie: The code--in the CC zone it says that you have to have a trash service area if you have a property abutting an alley. And with the lot line adjustment with the Lane parcel they have property abutting the alley. That didn't actually answer your question, Roger. Roger: It sure didn't that it required a restaurant. because I thought we had changed the code service access to the alley for anv Joe: It is not worded that way precisely. alley frontage it implies if you have alley have all alley service. Roger: The Planning Dept better look into it again. It says if you have frontage you have to Jasmine: Yes. That was definitely the intent to that one. Roger: The intent of it was that in order to have a restaurant they had to have service access to an alley. I don't care how 22 PZM3.6.90 they did it. It could be through an easement or something like that but what we did not want is the gosh darned delivery trucks stacked around the corner of Mill and Hopkins servicing restaurants. And that was the whole point of that. Leslie: We will look into that. there____mumble If it is not in Joe: The restaurant is not part of this application. I will say that for the record. Roger: Well if it is in that building-- Jasmine: It is part of it. Roger: I have go an alarm system going off here. Joe: It is in the building permit. Baker: I just wanted to say what Leslie already said. We will research that____mumble____ Leslie: The applicant has asked me to reduce the height from the required 10ft to 7ft. The Engineering Dept and myself do not have a problem with that. The problem is if you extend that into the storage area, in our opinion when you take from the storage area to the trash service area you are not causing the applicant to do a major redesign on the building. My argument with Joe is provide it, you don't have to use it. reduction. it up front and if you don't need We really can't support a trash Welton: What is that storage for? Harley: It is for the maintenance guy who operates the Collins Block. Jasmine: I would like to know how they got a building permit for a restaurant. Welton: Because it is a permitted use in that zone district. Roger: Yes, if there is service access to the alley. Joe: I honestly don't think it was codified in that manner. I read the requirement very carefully and I never-- Jasmine: No change in use required? 23 PZM3.6.90 Welton: No change in use is required for a permitted use. Roger: I understand the permitted use but it goes back to where we were at way back when realizing that we wanted restaurants to have serv ice access to the alley and-- Leslie: Yes. It says in here under Restaurant--the definition shall be required to have serviced delivery and access to the alley or other off street service delivery area. It doesn't say anything about trash. Roger: No. What I am talking about is service access and they apparently have no service access for the restaurant. And where is the other off street? Graeme: I guess you walk around. Roger: That is not off street. Harley: I guess this is something that would be accomplished by the bank and I getting together. Roger: Yea. It can be but you have got a problem at the moment. You have got a real problem at the moment as far as I am concerned. Harley: Two million dollars in that restaurant and it is 2 weeks from the CO. There is not problem. Roger: I don't know how it can get a co without complying with the-- Joe: It says "Other off street service delivery area". Roger: Well OK, where is you other off street service area? Joe: I can't answer the question. It was obviously something no one picked up on and at the time the building permit was issued. Roger: Well, you have got a problem. I am making it an official problem. MOTION Jasmine: I would like to move to table this application. I am really perturbed about some of these things. I would like to have some questions answered about this restaurant and about the interpretation of the code and about the CO and about the access and about the off alley service. And I don't think it is any 24 PZM3.6.90 favor to the applicant to go ahead with this with these things unresolved. I would like tot have a lot more information before I rule on anything concerning this because these things are all tied in. And at that point you also might have more information based on what is going on with your other negotiations that will enable us to do this all in a more comprehensive fashion. Welton: If this has indeed gone down the pike with the Building Dept in violation of the code then that is something that needs to be really figured out. Jasmine: I think this is an opportunity for us to try to straighten all of these thing snow at this point. And I would Just as soon do it because I think it would be better for the applicant and better for us and the community. I would like to look at all of these thing in a more comprehensive fashion and I don't think that is a disservice to anybody. Roger seconded the motion. Baker: Regardless of whether you table or not I would like to research with the attorneys what the situation is with the building permit for the restaurant and we could report back to you on that issue regardless of the action tonight. We blew it. We didn't the definition as clearly as we should have. I would like a chance to talk with the attorneys about that. Roger: Maybe a condition of the lot line adjustment--maybe should have the lot line adjustment in such a way that it give them a little corner access around and through property. they does that Harley: There is not way to do that without ___mumble. There is no way--you see I have got 6 inches which is--Dexter encroached on me, I encroached on Dexter and the Sabbatini building and so there was a piece in between--using map--there is a 6 inch piece that we needed to bring our utilities in. So I traded this 6 inches from Dexter for his back of the wall here. That is the lot line adjustment. It is hopeful that if I get an agreement with the bank to have a service entrance back here so that they have access to me to get out from here because otherwise for the most part they are landlocked and I could have a second means of egress back out here. Service entrance is one of the reasons we want to do it. Likewise for them. But at the same time the restaurant has nothing to do with what is here today. Jasmine: That is not true. 25 PZM3.6.90 Graeme: I agree with them that this is a separate thing. It is a problem but it is not our problem right here and right now. We hope it doesn't get done that way but it will give them some time to see if the other thing will work out. Welton: I would be inclined if the motion as currently on the floor to table. If that does not pass I would be inclined to go with the Planning Office recommendation for a trash service area sized per code for the entire development. Bruce called question on the motion to table. Welton: It is still a live motion and seconded. Roll call vote: Graeme, no, Bruce, no, Mari, no, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Welton, no. Mari: Are we not ready to discuss the parking thing yet. Joe: Can we deal with the trash? Welton: Would anybody disagree with the comment I made that the trash should be according to code and not reduced. Harley: If we have 5 dumpsters the Brand Building 18,000sqft and a very active restaurant needs 2 dumpsters. I f we don't need more than 2 dumpsters for the Collins block so we have 5 dumpsters--we have got an extra one for the entire Collins Block and the entire Brand and what I would say if BFI has any problem whatsoever in the Collins Block which is what we are dealing with and in the Brand I would build the extra space. But it is absolutely ridiculous and there is not reason for me to build it whatsoever, I would like not to. If I need it for both buildings I will build it. Welton: I think there is a consensus among the Commissioners that the trash should be according to code. So condition area of a configuration #9 should read "special review for trash service square footage according to code but in the that is both lower and double loaded as approved". MOTION Graeme: I so move. Bruce: All 3 of them go together: The free market, increase in the net leasable space and the affordable housing units, the CO goes simultaneously with all 3 I think is what we want to say 26 PZM3.6.90 which means that I think that you combine #1 and #5 together to say something to that affect. Welton: Graeme, made a motion in accordance with Planning Office memo. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor except Roger. MAROLT RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL PUD. REZONING Baker: This is another implementation measure of the work that P&Z did on the housing plan of the Truscott Place is occupied and Marolt Ranch is another one of those efforts. Baker made presentation as attached in record. staff believes this is an excellent project and one that is certainly needed. The design team's concern for identity for this project. This is unique. There is going to be a lot of seasonal housing here and the identity that it creates is important to give the residents ownership. Richard Shaw, Design Workshop: (17.15) Conceptual review has been granted by the council and we have reached the point of public financing. That means that construction can begin this spring and we would expect occupancy of this project by November. This is a dormitory style housing program. There are 100 units of 504sqft in each. In the summer time they will be occupied by MAA with 3 people per unit and during the other 9 months it will be occupied by seasonal employees at 2 per unit. In the financing package there is a need to incorporate a dormitory style housing and that has represented a program which does not have individual kitchens. Therefore a cafeteria on site to serve this site has been incorporated in the program. We are going to stub up the individual units for kitchens in the future. It is important to not that the City of Aspen is the owner of this project. The Housing Authority is the development applicant but they will act on the lease capacity from the City of Aspen for the construction and the management of the project. Therefore a level of control is very high with the city as they are in fact the owners. There are 4.3 acres of land being used. That is the southern portion of the Marolt property. The 62 acres of land which was approved as part of the conceptual application was important in establishing a context for which housing would occur. Those issues relative to this overall piece of the Marolt property have been resolved at the conceptual level. And it has been determine 27 PZM3.6.90 that this 4.3 acres of the southern most end of the property would be affordable housing. There are also issues at the conceptual level dealing primarily with access to the site and future open space uses on the remaining portions of the open space of the Marolt Property\ which have also been resolved. The site plan has been organized around a very unique concept for transportation. There are 100 housing units here of a very controlled nature. That is simply to say that the people who will occupy these housing units come here with prior knowledge that there is a reduced emphasis on automobiles. In the summer time the MAA has their own public transportation system. They will have food service, living accommodations and practice rooms on one site. We have seen the need for future parking can be reduced considerably from what you would normally expect in a housing program. Many of these students who come here do not have cars and will not use automobiles while they are here. We also have the advantage of the existing RFTA buss stop which is right here across from the hospital and during the summer months the MAA will run its own shuttle system that will connect with this project to other portions of the campus. In the winter time we are going to institute an attitude in management control that says that the parking spaces which exist for this housing program are in fact an additional cost to the basic rent of the program. So if you rent a unit if you desire a parking stall there is an additional fee which goes to that. If you don't pay that fee then parking will be provided to you at 2 locations. One is the MAA campus. The other is the sanitary landfill. city Council has ben very strong in their viewpoints that there is offsite parking scheme at a reduction of the normal parking standard. The lower ratio is appropriate here as shown in this configuration. It also has the need to serve some additional future uses including uses for the park use and for the which is off the site. We have chosen to keep the profile of the building down to 2 stories so that it tends to be smaller in scale and the visual impact on this end of the project which is primarily the end of the building here would be reduced. We have from a important things. landscape point of view tried to do several First is the notion that this cannot look like '--... 28 PZM3.6.90 a dormitory. We have tried to incorporate a great deal of site amenity in the form of landscaping and open space, outdoor eating areas and the units are faced in such a way that they all orient along this pedestrian walkway which also served as an emergency exit. It is fundamentally an historic street. We have lined it with street trees primarily Cottonwoods which exist on that site and then we have utilized another site feature which is water. It turns out that the water that services the golf course and the Marolt project comes through from a source at this location. And rather than put that into a pipe and bury it and make it go away from the site we have created a longer walkway system here and formed spillways along with irrigation ditches, small water ponds and then have continued to bring it around the outside the entire project. This will allow for diversion into the existing Marolt ditches allowing the irrigation program to continue. It also distributes this water from this point of the site down to the golf course and where the existing ditches have been now provides a new way of accommodating the full water right which the City of Aspen has for this property. We have also shown at the request of City Council that there be some method of screening a good deal of the project from Hwy 82 and the intent is to make sure that the open space had some visual into it rather than simply building. So in this area which is shaded we are using excess earth from the site and form other community projects to build a berm which will be 11ft tall and have coniferous planting on it as well as planting along this irrigation ditch which will be Cottonwoods. At one time during conceptual review there at one time was a bridge that made a connection towards the hospital but people generally felt and it was particularly strong from the Parks Association that the bridge itself was worse than not having the linkage of the project through this small segment here and the visual impact of the bridge would almost be equal to the project. So the bridge has been removed and instead a system of walkways and bide trails will continue through the project and in some ways will tie into the same system the resident s of this project will use. In between the buildings we have storage areas and recycling bins for trash, glass, aluminon, paper and dumpsters. We had originally thought this project would be phased. The intent was to phase it in such a way that the music students would have accommodations for the summer. What has happened is the Truscott Place has allowed students to utilize that area and 29 PZM3.6.90 this will now be built as one project beginning this Spring and ending this fall including the cafeteria building. There have been concerns regarding the use of the cafeteria and the nature of that food service. It will operate summer and winter. It will operate as a facility that is small enough to accommodate only this project. It is not intended for the public to come and use this food service as a cafeteria or restaurant. We are classifying it as a facility that would service the employee service requirements and there potentially could be in the future a need for Truscott Place employees to come over on occasions and utilize the food service. In the basement room of the cafeteria there are practice rooms for the students. There is a summary of staff comments attached in the record. Following discussion regarding the food service program-- Graeme: I read somewhere that the trails going through there would be gravel. I think that if you really want to encourage bicycle use I feel that that should be a paved to encourage bike use. I think it could be more bike orientated by providing covered racks that are lighted at night so that there isn't vandalism. Shaw: After talking to the Planning Dept we have agreed to do that within the project. It will be an 8ft wide asphalt path from the Truscott down to the project and down 100ft from the parcel bounDary. From that point on it is clearly the responsibility of the Parks Association. The bike thing is something we want to encourage and therefore have incorporated actual bike racks. But this project has an interesting thing along the front of it which is this wide covered walkway system. it is wide enough to put a bicycle there under roof cover and still have room for walkway. Kim Johnson and Commission discussed all of the staff conditions and recommendations as attached in record. Shaw: I do express an concern about the PBC lining of the ditches as requested by Coulombe of the Golf Course. First is that we have now ____ detinite___clay lining which will be compacted to 95% ____density which is an impervious surface to water. It is my experience that that is a far better method of containing water features in the Aspen Valley than it is to come in with PBC liner. The liner is always SUbject to puncture and it has difficulties with the edge condition because somehow you 30 PZM3.6.90 have to tie the liner back into the earth. So that is really a technical choice but I think Rich should allow us and our engineers to make realizing that our experience tells us that the non PBC and ventinite clay approach is a better one. Lining the entire ditch is not capable of being sustain by this proj ect. But we all have to remember this is the city of Aspen who is the owner and who is going to manage the open space. If that is a real need after the percolation test has been done then there is a way to solve that problem. But I would say that it is not appropriate for the Marolt Housing project to bear the cost of that lining of the ditch. Roger: The issue concerning the kitchen units is left vague as far as I am concerned. What is the status of the kitchen units? You said you were going to stub them off but does that mean we ever get kitchen units in these? Richard Shaw: That means we are providing stub offs. The existing legislation for this type of bond financing cannot have a private kitchen in the unit. There will be a microwave in the units and a sink. But they can't classify as a range and refrigerator. However if that legislation were to change that this bond financing would be less specific it is possible to come back and get a kitchen in those units. There will be a little tiny refrigerate. Roger: That causes grave reservations on my part as far as making it an effective employee housing project. If I can be assured that eventually efficiency kitchen units are going to go into these places, I can live with it a little better. How long is this bond requirement going to be overlaid on the project? Shaw: Until the law at the state level is changed. And it has been up for review by the legislature but no action has been taken. Baker: I would like to defer #1 until the end. We are recommending that the second and third condition are mute at this point based upon discussion we have had. Richard has assured us that there is a guarantee on plantings that extends for a year and on the operations budget that Jim has will take care of it from there on in. #4 should be renumbered as #2. That is something that MAA is still working on. We will try to get the program from MAA as to exactly what their program is for mass transit for this and Truscott Place and the tent and the campus. That alignment up to the hospital site is a very short distance now. Alignment was changed based upon P&Z's recommendation at conceptual. 31 PZM3.6.90 #5. The boulders are going to be used in the berm. delete that. You can #6. Richard has talked to Kim and Kim is satisfied that the berm is acceptable as it is drawn. We would like to delete #6. #7. We understand the historic integrity that Richard is trying to maintain on the site with the streetscape. We would like to delete that as well. We would like to delete #8 as well and allow that to be dealt with within the operational budget of the project. #9. Again, we don't have any problem anymore with the low level 12ft high lights. What we will hold the applicant to based upon the record tonight is that the bus shelter turn around for Council--they are going to pave the trail and there will be safety measures taken around the culverts of the ditches. We don't need conditions if the applicant agrees that that is something-- Craig Hanson: I can agree to all of that but the shelter which I think is an excellent idea. I just can't do that without-- Baker: OK. Then we will add that as a condition. #10. We would like to delete as well. We would like to keep #ll--make that #3 and that has got to be worked out between the Golf and by City staff essentially. Roger: And you are including ditch protection in the #11 then? Baker: That is something Richard is committed to. It is on the record. We will hold the applicant to that. We would like #4 to read "provision of bus shelter at the turn around by the cafeteria". And the prior to the issuance of the building permit--we will renumber these--#5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 and #11 keeping those all in tact. Richard, do you have any concerns with those? Richard: No. Those are all fine. Baker: Then a new #12 part of the code. requiring that the PUD agreement as 32 PZM3.6.90 with those conditions staff would recommend approval of final PUD, rezoning, special review for parking, conditional use for affordable housing for the Marolt Ranch. MOTION Roger: I so move with those conditions. Mari seconded the motion. Graeme: I just want to ask about how the access to the museum, the house is affected by this and in here it talks about the pedestrian access being the legal access for the museum and the house. The access for the Marolt Barn on 82 could disappear and if they were to build that museum, there might be a lot of construction traffic. Would that be on the pedestrian trackway or would that be across another part of the Marolt parcel? Rappaport: We have always assumed the construction in and around this barn area would curve off of Hwy 82 and existing roadway. We provide for a long term access located here off this parking lot and using this segment of the roadway which is ab out 12ft wide. We have not been asked or have the ability to look at what happens around that area. Graeme: If the new 82 goes in there which is a limited access highway, we are talking perhaps about having to bring another road across the open space. Baker: Ultimately there is no access off of 82. There is no visitor access to the museum directly to the site. Visitor access would occur from the parking lot or walk across the pedestrian bridge over Castle Creek. Emergency vehicle access in terms of fir protection makes the most sense to happen over the pedestrian bridge on Castle Creek. It can handle that. That issue is going to have to be addressed when the museum comes in for their rezoning and their rehabilitation. We don't want another road across the open space. going to happen to a widened trail here or the Castle Creek off of 7th street. It is either access across Roger: You had better improve the service access. well designed from this viewpoint here. It is not Baker: I would like to verify condition #1. We have worded it 33 PZM3.6.90 very restrictively. The feeling seems to be you want it loosened up somewhat. Welton: between for the How about the cafeteria function should be determined the City and the lease holder as deemed most appropriate benefit of the City and the tenants. Bruce: What is the status of the Last Stand? Doesn't that sit on City property. Baker: They lease it. Golf Course. Just like the Merry-Go-Round leases the Bruce: I don't see that this is any different. Mari: There is a cafeteria at the hospital. Welton: And they serve good food at reasonable prices. Mari: And people can go there-- Baker: So you want to see it left flexible and let the city work the lease out with the lease holder. Roger: I will accept the change in condition #1 to my motion. Mari: I amend my second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8:15pm 34