Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900925 ~p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call Compton, Bruce Kerr, Welton Anderson. were Sara Garton, Graeme Means, Richard Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton: Let the record show that the County P&Z has joined us. JOINT MEETING WITH PITKIN COUNTY P&Z MAROON CREEK BRIDGE DESIGN Tom Baker: At the last meeting we had a number of issues came up and in the memo I have outlined those. I would like to get agreement from both P&Zs on the finding language and then I would put those findings in resolutions to be signed by the chairs of each committee so that they could be forwarded to the elected officials of each manager's office. It is my understanding that the managers are going to try to go to the elected officials probably the second week of October to get a formal resolution from Pitkin County and Aspen sent to the Hwy Dept about this Maroon Creek issue. The first finding that I have deals with the design. This was an issue that there wasn't much discussion about last time. The real concern was the actual width in the roadway design aspect. But in talking to the Hwy Dept they asked if we could give them some direction on which design we preferred then they could begin some of their work while we still hash out details of the actual roadway portions. At the last meeting there were 6 City and 5 County P&Z members. And we had 3 members that preferred the slant leg design and 2 members that preferred steel box girder design and the rest had no opinion. In discussions with Roxanne of the Planning Office we tried to focus on which design was the cleanest and in taking a more detailed look at the slant leg design you will see there are cross embers that brace in between each pair of legs. So it is a much busier design than it looks like from this angle. And because it is not straight vertical and horizontal elements and somewhat slanted Roxanne and the rest of the staff agreed that we would like to vote this design. The one caveat is that this doesn't necessarily need to be a concrete element. This could be a steel element if that is appropriate. Roger: I have 2 feelings about it. If we retain the RR Bridge, I like the steel box girder design because it somewhat tends to get hidden just by the very nature of the shape and happen to PZM9.25.90 conform with some of the elements of the old RR Bridge behind it. Now if that bridge were out of there I don't' have a problem with the steel slant leg design though I do find the slant leg design as considerably more busy under there than the elements of the steel box girder design. Dwight: I agree with what Roger said and I think this is a lot of discussion about something that is not very important. This is the least important of the issues. Several agreed. A vote taken at this time showed the steel box girder was the overwhelming choice. Baker: The discussion on the width of the bridge and it was pretty clear that the width that was proposed was unacceptable. ?: I would like to see us debate #1 first. What I am doing personally is I am reconciling myself to the fact that we have failed to do what we had to do to limit the size of this bridge. And so frankly unless we are prepared to do some of those things like aggressively go in and intersect automobiles that we are going to be stuck with a bridge that was designed substantially--my sense is that it is not really responsible to eliminate pedestrian access ways from the highway . For example I could see the utilization of the old bridge as in the summertime a place where you take and hiking for trail connection and that sort of thing. And in the wintertime you would leave the snow on it and it would become part of the cross country trail system quite a different from what pedestrian access ways are on the new bridge itself. And I don't think it is necessarily responsible through removing pedestrian access on the new bridge. My information is unless we are willing to deal with the things that make us have to have this kind of bridge I think the design they have come up with is pretty damned adequate. It may be bigger than we want but that is a function of the community's failure to deal with these questions. By complaining about traffic lights. If we have failed to deal with traffic in this community and traffic lights are what we get, we can't really--it is not very constructive to complain about the traffic light. So I am inclined to leave it the way it is. I do favor the single bridge structure without all the division. ?: I would like to comment first on the reason I wanted to discuss the old bridge is because on the one hand we are talking 2 PZM9.25.90 about the design of a new bridge and at the same time we are talking about the possible utilization of the old bridge. And I don't mind telling you I drove by there and I have stopped and I have looked at this site and what is being envisioned here to me is absolutely incomprehensible. If you consider the width of the old bridge. You then consider a space between the old bridge and the new bridge and then you consider the new bridge, you have got yourself a massive--well it is a mess. And if you are going to design a new bridge you have got to know whether the old bridge is going to be in place or not and if it is in place whether it is going to be usable. The Hwy Comm I get the impression are really hustling us on this issue of this old bridge. And I will tell you why. #1 in their letter to Carol they mention the fact that the removal of the old bridge is not now considered an option as reasonable alternatives to removal have been identified in our EIS. Well I submit that what the Hwy Comm is really telling us is that it is going to be a lot cheaper if we leave that old bridge in place--use it during construction and then turn it back over to the community and the community ends up stuck with the repair bills of a bridge that they later say in the same letter, is It is our belief that the historic structure which was modified into a highway bridge from a RR bridge and to my notion isn't even historic--it dates from 1928 really--should be retired. I guess that means it just sits there with no expectation of future rail uses or extended pedestrian use due to it's advanced age. So what they are telling us is "Leave that relic in place so it can fall down". So at the same time you are going to have about 150 or 60 foot wide expanse there of old bridge, new bridge and space between the 2. And on top of that as I understand it the State Historical Society has no funds. So my question is who is going to take care and who is going to maintain this historical relic? You are looking at them. It will be Pitkin County or the city of Aspen or both. And my way of thinking is that it would be far more practical and wise to take a position to remove the old bridge and phase in the construction of the new bridge which they aren't going to like. And then of course the question arises whether they will even come back with this kind of design if they accept that program because they are going to have to phase in 2 lanes and then another 2 lanes. 3 PZM9.25.90 ? : One of the things that has not been addressed to me is different scenarios. We could leave the existing bridge in place and build a 2 lane or build one of these. Then put all the 2 lane traffic back on that, move the old one, put a new one in place or ----We need to think about the time. How do we want to do this over a period of time. Roger: I agree with all that has been said here. And my preference would be to build phase #1 new Hwy Bridge immediately to the north of the existing historic bridge, get that into operation. Then move the historic bridge to the south out of the way and keep that as a trail asset if it is usable. Then phase 2 of the Hwy bridge, build the other half of the hwy, double it, where the existing historic bridge is right now. Graeme: I really agree that we need to decide some things to give the proper input so the proper bridge can be designed. And I think it is real important to resolve the old bridge issue whether it stays and could be used or taken down. Also I think the county really needs to come up with some kind of something on the train and give the Hwy Dept direction on the train. Then I think there is another threshold issue that is maybe the elevation of the roadway at the bridge if there are some scenarios where the hwy might be depressed and the problem with the hwy is that it basically divides totally all of the land out there. It slices it right down. In Fall River Mass. a highway went right through Fall River--cut it right in half. And then somehow somebody built a new City Hall right on top of the hwy. And it served as a great link to link the 2 different sides. And part of the roadway at that point was depressed so that they could build the new City Hall there. I think we need to think about slicing that whole down valley area in half and whether we want to do that or whether we want to try and create some links. And whether you could play golf right across the thing or whatever. But I think the linkage between the 2 different parts is really important and it might affect the elevation of the roadway and therefore the complete bridge design. Jim: I think that the reason why we are stymied with this thing is it is being presented as just 2 solutions is that we don't have our criteria sites set. I would see our job as planning commissions is to come up with a clear set of criteria. All of the criteria have been set and made of public record at public hearings before the Colo Dept Hwy out at the high school when 4 PZM9.25.90 they were establishing the corridor. That was when we were all giving input at the Environmental Impact statement. I say it is all in there. They just take that damned stuff and shove it under a shelf and give us the 2 bridges. All of the things about pedestrian ways and local traffic and all of those criteria have already been given to them. What we need to do is re-enforce that and say "This is what this hwy has to satisfy". Baker: I wonder if we could with this particular finding--while the P&Zs are concerned with the community's historic resources the P&Zs are also concerned with the community's recreation and open space resources as well as the community's entrance image. with these competing goals, the P&Z finds the old Maroon Creek Bridge should be re-Iocated, demolished or re-used for automobile traffic in order to reduce the impact which the hwy has on this portion of the community. Should we add in the construction phasing that I hear Bill, Roger and Jim talk about? And then we would have another finding about hwy design and depressing. ?: The question I have had on the old bridge would be whether it could be re-used. They are saying in affect that it can't be. Which in other words that it is so structurally unsound and so old that it isn't going to be worth trying to renovate it or re- use it. And they are even extending that to pedestrian use. Mari: But it is good enough for construction. Welton: It is good enough for the last-- ?: Yes--they will get it that far and then they will probably condemn it. Graeme: I don't think they said that. I think they said they didn't want to be responsible for maintaining that. But I don't think they came out and said this thing cannot be a usable bridge. They just don't want to do it. ?: The next step in the scenario would be that somebody that inspects bridges int he state comes in and says "You have got an alternative now. You don't use this bridge for anything including pedestrian unless you have a complete renovation". My suggestion would be that it be demolished. has any place in the community. I don't think it ?: I would make that a motion because I think it is clear it shouldn't be re-used for automobile traffic. 5 PZM9.25.90 ?: The other thing I didn't mention was that with the present bridge in it's present location you are losing those athletic fields and it is going to be to me the tradeoff is unconscionable in terms of the community. I think that if we got rid of the old bridge we could retain the parking lot for the golf, the soccer fields and the whole shot. Welton: For every engineer the Hwy Dept comes up with that says the old bridge can't be used, I can find you another engineer that says it can. So I won't buy that for 2 seconds. Actually your third option there--re-use for automobile traffic is what I suggested a month ago. It still is being the least destructive way of going about it from a staging, timing, keep all the 2-way traffic going while you build another 2 lane bridge and then you have 4 lanes. And what could be simpler than that? And renovate the old bridge. ?: I got a very strong reading from the Hwy Dept that it would be unprofessional for them to suggest that that bridge should be used for continued automobile. Now everything could be fixed but the question is it would cost. ?: Here is the solution. There is sentimental value--the structure as it appears to our eyes. You can create a solution. You can build a new bridge within the bridge. The structure is still there. It is just there mumble____ ?: We are talking about actually using the alignment that the existing bridge is on. And how they come up with a design that accommodates that is up to them. But I know it can be done. There is question about it. Essentially what I hear Jim saying is that you build a bridge underneath it and utilize those lanes until you have 2 lanes that available for traffic, then you demolish the old thing and finish off the rest of your bridge. Roger: I am saying ultimately the bridge should either be moved or if it is not practical to be re-used, why move it? Demolish it. But Jim brings up an interesting idea. I think what Jim is saying is OK build a new bridge immediately to the north of the existing bridge. But then when you get the 2 lanes of traffic on the new bridge then in effect you reconstruct a bridge within the old bridge. There was agreement from several. ?: I am getting that there is a different question here. I think we are way off base is trying ourselves is to try and resolve how we use the existing bridge. I think that is an engineering issue and it is everything that we have 6 PZM9.25.90 done. I don't disagree that the existing bridge alignment should end up being part of the bridge alignment. ?: Maybe the bridge has to go. I am not married to the bridge. I think we need to get a reading of who is married tot he bridge and who isn't. Roger: Maybe the first question is the alignment. ?: The alignment and the plan. this surface? Are you going to going to do all those things? those things. Al Blomquist: I agree that if they are going to build new entirely it would be best if they took out the old bridge. And put in the 2 new ones parallel and do it in stages. Are we going to accommodate all tie together open space? Are we Or are we not going to do all But I kind of took off from where Breasted was the last time and asked a couple of questions. My interest is in trails. with the Owl Creek Trail now paved we have got to have trails up both sides of the highway. There is no question in my mind that you have got to have trails on both sides all the way from Brush Creek all the way into town. So trying to save the old bridge I just asked Jim's question "What happens if you depress in this particular section?" And the implied that if you drop the new bridge down 15 to 17ft so it is below the existing bridge and then convert it to say a 20ft wide trail bridge which would be a 10ft lane in each direction. Then put little 14ft trail bridges across the new hwy so that both sides then would use the old bridge as the trail system. And we would also have the trails underneath for cross country and so on. We have a golf course here that wants to play back and forth so this would tend to serve that proposed golf course. It would serve the people on both trails from out at ABC and the airport in. It would serve the trail needs into town and it serves the Nordic and everybody's trail needs to be able to cross the highway. And you make the pedestrian king and you advertise to the hwy user that pedestrian is king. The rail option is that this could be used at a later date for the rail. It is conceivable that this could also be I would say this should be narrowed and have no sidewalks. So we achieve not only that lower bridge but a narrower bridge if we make the pedestrian king in the design. This at least picks up the idea that the hwy is not a flat dominant great experience but they can have a little up and down. 7 PZM9.25.90 I just left it where it was, lowered it 15 to 20ft. That means you dig out here and of course the playing fields and the parking lot on the golf course are 10ft below the hwy. So we are talking this thing entering that area maybe 5ft into the dirt and still then the clearance. The original design being at this bridge is up--the new bridge is up in the air and these users have to go down under and come back around and up to use it. That really beats up the pedestrian. That knocks out all the snow cover for cross country. This way you can do some playful landscape design work. ?: As an entrance to town you think of winter time when people come here and they just see people steam back and forth across the road and you can't have a better advertisement than to have that sort of activity going on. Richard Compton: My sentiment is that either the present bridge gets reused for auto traffic or it gets replaced with half the hwy on that site. It's only essential purpose that can't be served by pedestrian lanes on the new bridge is for cross country skiing in the winter. That much space for that one function doesn't seem to me to be a worthwhile trade-off. Susanne: The thing I have put myself at a disadvantage on this because for the other 2 meetings I was not in town. But I know-- what I am stuck on is the timing issue. When we have dealt with the Hwy Dept before I have always felt like I was moving into an ambush down some blind canyon because I was being presented with options that were being chosen by somebody outside of my community. And I was lead down the path of thinking they gave me 2 options, that was all I had. So the timing issue and Tom Baker's memo today is the one that continues to stand out for me. To me a bridge is something that joins 2 pieces of the hwy. And my other experience that has made me fearful in dealing with bridges is because I live on Maroon Creek Rd and the bridge on Maroon Creek Rd is so much wider than the road itself that I can envision in the future what that may lead to. It seems to me that the community decides where it wants the highway to go, how wide it wants it to be, whether it has median strips in the center or it is very narrow. But it decides--it know what the environmental impact for that hwy is going to be first. And then the bridge matches it. So Jim Breasted's idea of setting up the criteria first as I see it with the hwy first and then dealing with the bridge as a link makes a lot of sense. I know we are bring driven right now because there is money available. But that is not a good reason. 8 PZM9.25.90 ?: To me what drives the bridge is how you want to cross this and how you want to make these intersections work and then you want to talk about the bridge. Baker: Since our last meeting I have talked to Rich perske and asked him what is the balance or the linkage between the hwy and the bridge. And he said that the roadway where it comes up to the bridge mirrors what the bridge is. So in effect the timing issue was a valid one that was brought up the last time. Whatever we do on this bridge is going to dictate that design at least for a good 300ft. ?: But that is bass ackwards! Susanne: The finding here that what had been suggested is according to the cross sections for the bridge and the roadway adjacent to the bridge must match. That is where I start feeling like I am walking into an ambush. After looking at the Maroon Creek--we are talking about on Maroon Creek Rd a 28ft wide road and a bridge that looks like a landing strip! ?: I get that feeling of ambush too from the--we were told by perske at the last meeting that the community had voted on this solution and that is all we are going to get. That the drawings had been presented as part of the ballot issue. No! The community voted on--that is an ambush because the community voted whether or not to give up open space. They said "yes". They did not vote on the design. Compton: And that was Castle Creek, not Maroon Creek. ?: Yes that was Castle Creek and the entrance--whether it was a straight shot or the existing. Welton: And the ballot question didn't have anything to do with the Hwy Dept's design. Dwight: I happen to agree with the idea that we ought to design the hwy. What I have perceive all along is a real reluctance to do that. And if what I am hearing is that we ought to be involved in designing the hwy is solve what we perceive is a lot of local problems that I am for doing that even if this bridge gets derailed. And we come back after we design the hwy the kind of hwy that we want and then we make the bridge match up to our design. My concern I have seen this process go on for 20 years. And we traditionally sit around and ambush the Hwy Dept and they have their own idea about what is going to happen here. And we have 9 PZM9.25.90 not provided an alternate VJ.SJ.on. If that is what these 2 planning commissions want to do I really want to do that. This is not the only place for a pedestrian crossing if there is going to be a problem. We face the very real prospect of putting a 4 6-lane hwy in all the way through Shale Bluffs and then having gridlock when we put all the stop lights in because we haven't addressed the question of access to and from the hwy by cars and pedestrians at the ABC. If we are not going to go in and actually do the design, this community based design, that we can agree on then we may as well let these guys do their thing because that is what we are going to get anyway. So if we are not going to do that this is fine. The brain damage of trying to ambush the Hwy Dept at each stage of this thing is really not going to be worth it and we are going to end up getting what they are going to design for us anyway. The other realistic alternative is that we design the hwy--the whole damned hwy including the bridges and all these access problems which I personally think we ought to be doing. But that derails the bridge. It sets back the timetable. Welton: We have a list of findings that--we jumped right to the last one which is up on the screen. I think it is appropriate that we discuss whether or not these findings are something we want to send to the Hwy Dept. Personally this last one particularly the part where it says these competing goals, the P&Zs find the old Maroon Creek Bridge should be re-Iocated, demolished or re-used for automobile traffic in order to reduce the impact which the hwy has on this portion of the community--I think is a finding that I feel very strongly in favor of because literally taking out 150ft to the north of the existing bridge is not something that I feel good about. And however we get to the goal of keeping as much on the existing alignment and minimizing the damage I think that is a good goal. ?: Maybe what Peter Guy mentioned was is that we should emphasize the utilization of the current route and then point out that either the old RR bridge should either re-aligned incorporated into the existing ROW or structure or removed. Welton: Does anybody on either P&Z have negative feelings about this last finding and think it is not something we want to make as part of our statement? Roger: I would add something along the line of the last statement where I think we should find that given all of these concerns we find that the hwy in the vicinity of the Maroon Crk 10 PZM9.25.90 Bridge should be as much as possible contained within the existing ROW. ?: Or the ROW of the existing bridge should be utilized. Roger: By the existing hwy ROWand that includes the bridge. ?: The new bridge design must incorporate the current hwy alignment. Susanne: They can do that by making the new bridge stretch from the Roaring Fork River back to Pyramid though and still the community won't be saying whether we decided we want light rail, whether we want it in that spot, whether we want the hwy to be reduced visually in point by being buried a bit, whether we want it to accommodate the kind of criteria that Jim Breasted has gone over. They could just wreak havoc with that. I know what you are after and I am with you on that. Baker: What I have heard is that in addition to what we see on the screen, add "Given all of these concerns the P&Zs find that a new bridge design must be incorporated as much as possible within the current hwy alignment". ?: I don't think I have heard a consensus here. Welton: Consensus on what? Susanne: I think the big question that Dwight brought up--do we want to find that the bridge design should wait until after the hwy is designed. And the hwy should be designed locally. That is the whole thing. And why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we decide that we wanted to have as much input as possible as a community on the hwy design and then find out how the bridge matches it. ?: I got tremendous intuition. And I design things physically all the time. So I know exactly what I want it to look like. A lot of people here don't. Baker: We have the ability to--we have got an advisory committee that is advising both the P&Zs on hwy design. The Maroon Creek Bridge was thrown in early because of the State money that was available. We were asked to respond. I think it is entirely appropriate for you to say the timing is premature and that we need to deal with the design of the hwy and the bridge simultaneously. And if that means the state money is in jeopardy- -that is our choice. Peter: If you are going to get married for money, you had better be prepared to make some compromises. 11 PZM9.25.90 ?: I agree essentially with what Dwight and Jim are saying. And another way of saying is that the design of the bridge is putting the cart before the horse and that there are too many other problems that need to be resolved before we can put that link in between those hwy solutions. You have got to know what you are going to do with the hwy before you design the bridge to link it. ?: You are talking about from the ABC through Maroon Creek, through Castle Creek into town. That is the crucial segment we are talking about. And all we really would be telling them was is that we have got to have this--to look at this as a whole. Because if you attempt to just decide on the design of one particular segment ie the Maroon Creek Bridge you have given away so to speak the design on the rest of the segment. Welton: Would somebody like to make a motion that says the cart if before the horse and that something that we can vote on. Suggestion here that the Planning Office draft a resolution on the consensus to the effect that the P&Zs feel that the cart is before the horse. MOTION Welton: Would somebody make a motion to have the Planning Office draft a resolution to the effect that it is too early to pick A or B on a bridge design without knowing what the community wants and needs as far as a hwy design and outer end of it. ?: What I would like to suggest also in that motion that we emphasize that at this stage we feel that the existing alignment should be utilized in the Maroon Creek Bridge. Baker: Could I also ask for some feedback on another finding. The finding #4 under the second star, it talks about the possibility concept of future light rail. I heard last time that that was something that we all felt pretty comfortable with. So give them that as well. My thinking is that regardless of where the light rail goes, if it stays on the Rio Grande within the next 50 to 70 years we may want to institute rail to Snowmass or to the ABC and then Snowmass. And having that in place that ability over the new bridges that are going to be long-term facilities is going to be valuable regardless of where the RR comes in initially. ?: The problem I am having with that is that what we wanted to say way it is too early to try to design this bridge and then 12 PZM9.25.90 what we are also saying is by the way we should design the bridges-- Welton: There is a motion on the floor. Would somebody like to make a second to that motion. Mari seconded the motion. Roger: Let's read the motion now. Welton: This is only a ;motion to direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution-- Baker: That deals with the issue that the finding that both P&Zs make that the design of the hwy bridge is premature and should be done with the design of the hwy and the airport to aspen section. And secondly that any new bridge it is a finding that both P&Zs make that any new bridge will have to utilize the existing alignment. Welton: This doesn't have any real details to hammer out. It is a sense that he is going to develop into a resolution. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Welton: The joint meeting is adjourned. Dwight: It seems to me that it is in our interest to try to get ahead of the Hwy design. I think we ought to be designing the hwy. How do we get that done? Baker: I am setting up a meeting for the 4th of October where we will get together. I was going to invite the advisory committee which has representatives from the P&Z. Now I will invite the advisory committee and both P&Zs. They haven't worked on this yet. working on the bridge before they this will be appropriate. They were annoyed that you were got to work on the highway. So Welton opened the special meeting of the Aspen P&Z Commission. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Mari: The City council voted unanimously in favor of the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. Roger: I want to publicly thank Sara very much for presenting me with this photograph. 13 PZM9.25.90 STAFF COMMENTS There were none. ASPEN MEADOWS MASTER PLAN Welton opened the public hearing. Bill Kane: The purpose for tonight's meeting is to bring back to P&Z for final consideration the conceptual masterplan for the Aspen Meadows. We are involved here in what will essentially be a 3-step masterplanning process. Because of the current zoning for the property and the lack of specific underlying zoning it is inappropriate by the City to undertake a specific resolution of long range land-use policies for the land and we have been at that since approximately July of 1989. In the development of this plan we have considered numerous alternatives. We have completed an extensive public involvement process with the City council, numerous meetings to involve those programming sessions with the non-profit groups and we have completed extensive public involvement sessions one of which was a major public hearing at the high school. 5 major land use alternatives were considered. A general land use policy alternative #3 as highlighted in the conceptual masterplan was tentatively adopted by the City Council. And then in July of this year a revised Consortium submission was brought back to the City Council by the Aspen Institute and the outline of that plan was presented to P&Z and was referred back to city Council. council's comments have been assembled and Amy can summarize those for you. Council considered the plan last night and what we would like to accomplish at this meeting is to achieve a final action by P&Z on the plan. What we propose to do is incorporate your final changes and come back at a public hearing date which will be October 16 to ask for final resolution of approval. Amy: The major issues that City Council noted is that they wanted to have some flexibility with the new 7th st access up to where they would actually go. Right now in the plan on the land use plan you have 2 different alternatives and I think the intent that we got back from City Council was we should leave the flexibility of having the houses on either the south side or the north side of that 7th st when they come in with their SPA application so we can assess the trade-offs on those issues. So 14 PZM9.25.90 we make some changes on the masterplan to allow for that flexibility. Roger: Does that mean you are considering the extension of actual North st where it is in effect closed off just south of the race track at this point? And have the buildings face on that? Amy: No. I think the options are to either have the building in one of 2 ways as they are shown on this plan where we have the 4 lots here as one option. The other option we have the road dip in here and have one lot on that side and 3 lots on the other side. The 3rd option was to have the road dip in and stay in and have all 4 houses on the other side of that road. At this time City Council felt that we should leave that open so that when the applicant comes in and they have done some engineering analysis and some site work the planning commission can look at those enough to tie those down. Roger: Would not the extension of North st go along that sort of southern angled border of those houses? Amy: No. (Demonstrated on map) Amy: The second issue was whether or not the size of the lots should be limited in this plan. Council felt that we should leave the flexibility open to the applicant when they come in with their SPA application and that the Institute should be allowed to have the flexibility in where those would go and how large they are and how they are configured. The next issue was of mitigation of employee housing. council reaffirmed their position that we should pursue a code amendment to allow for the affordable housing that would be associated with the Institute's expansion of the lodge to be waived as part of like an essential community facility type of an issue. And staff will have to come up with some language which would limit the number of facilities that could use the type code amendment in the future to non-profit that are important to the community. Council also re-affirmed all of the other employee housing requirements that were presented to the P&Z last time before the new townhomes and single family homes. And they agreed with the applicants that the existing chalet and the single family homes would be reviewed by HPC but only in an advisory capacity. And they agreed to leave open the location of the rehearsal facility and to leave those options open as to exactly where that would go when the applicant comes in with SPA application. 15 PZM9.25.90 There is one change we need to discuss tonight with respect to trails. city council presented a compromise that they reached with the Consortium on the purchase of conservation land. They agreed that the purchase price would be 2.1-2 million dollars. And that city Council would commit 1 million dollars toward the purchase price from the 6th penny land fund. As part of this agreement the City agreed to take on the responsibility of building and maintaining the trails and the picnic Point Bridge. As part of those negotiations there were some changes to the trail that are different from what is reflected in your packet. I think now people are talking about the trail that would come in along the old 8th st access and continue up here and come down at an angle down to the conservation land. In the draft you have in front of you we talk about continuing here and going down across the Trustee houses and coming down this slope here. So that was one change that needs to be reflected in the text of the masterplan which you have before you today that the City will be responsible for building and maintaining this trail and that the trail will actually cross over next to the new townhomes that will be built. Jasmine: In the discussion of the rehearsal facility and the location was there any discussion about the size of the rehearsal facility? Wasn't there a limitation from the original proposal in terms of the square footage for the rehearsal facility? Kane: The original proposal was 11,000sqft and 500 seats. Jasmine: So there is not any limitation on number of seats or size of the rehearsal facility in the plan as it now stands. Welton: I am a little confused. Are we anticipating adopting the masterplan tonight and then if so when would the SPA start? Amy: We are expecting an application around October 15th and we have tentatively scheduled that for Planning commission November 20th. That would be conceptual which would go from Planning commission to council and would come back with final. Bruce: I am a little bit puzzled by the relationship the P&Z has at this point in the process given the fact that City council in effect has approved this plan and has submitted it to us for final approval. I think it is a given that we all understand that this compromise that has been reached is very fragile. There are elements of it that if you take away anyone of those then the whole thing may fall down. I am a little puzzled as to what our roll is tonight. Whether our roll is merely to rubber 16 PZM9.25.90 stamp what has been brought before us because it is a compromise that has been reached between city council and all the parties involved or whether there really is any room for creative input on our part tonight. I don't know the answer to that as to what my roll is. Amy: If the Planning Commission feels strongly about something that they feel should be on the masterplan or not you have the prerogative to add those into the masterplan. Wel ton: This masterplan for comments. is a public hearing the Aspen Meadows. for the We will adoption of the now take public Chick Collins: I have a petition which I would like to present at this time. (attached in record.) This has the names of 60 people plus who are opposed. We are speaking our concerns this evening as to the race track. And principally the extension of 7th st into the track. (This speach went on for another 30 minutes and can be located on the tape if necessary.) Andy Hecht: I would like to correct chick on a couple of things. In the first place for the last 15 years every plan that has come forward one of the key ingredients is to move the access to 7th st and preserve the track. That was not an inconsistent plan and Chick I think misleads you when he says that the preservation of the track is inconsistent with having the road come around the peripheral of the track. There was not ever a consideration. Chick was one of the people who constantly asserted that. I think that there are tremendous impacts that are being born by the Meadows Rd people. I think in the nature of compromise which this plan is supposed to be we should consider not only the access but also the impacts of each group of neighbors are suffering by reason of this development. Meadows Rd is not constructed to support that development. It is not a straight shot. It is not visible from everyplace and there are some significant dangers. I don't think there was an adequate traffic count and I don't think Chick's traffic study should be considered as part of your focus of which access to accept. The Physics Institute does support this plan so for Chick to take their cause on I think is not proper. Jim Markalunas: I just want to state that that has been a race track since 1890s and I always thought that this town was dedicated for the preservation of our historical heritage. It is a shame that we have to bisect the race track by putting a road 17 PZM9.25.90 around there on that side of the houses. And I think it can be solved by just simple driveways off of 7th and North and off of 8th st to serve those 4 lots. For the very same reason that the Meadows Rd people object to it, if you look at 7th st that is a very narrow street too. And that equally impacts 7th st and 6th st. I watch very-near-collisions constantly on the intersection of 6th and North st. And this traffic when you open up 7th st is going to compound that because everybody back and forth from the Meadows will be going back and forth to the tent. And I think you can have the best of both roads by solving the access problem to those lots with just driveways. You don't need a road. We have got too many roads in this town. We have got too many automobiles and too much traffic and the west end is just one big parking lot. Let's get to the real problem. If the Meadows people want to be ingenious about it would be to try to develop some type of shuttle or vans and try to restrict automobiles going back and forth. I would like to see that incorporated into the plan rather than just put more roads in. Jim Adams: My wife and I live at the very north end of Meadows Rd. We have lived there for about 36 years in absolute tranquility except for the traffic on Meadows Rd that has increased over years. We have made our compromises over our back fence. Over our back fence there are going to be 7 townhouses where there has been open space for the length of time that we have lived there. One of our problems was the increased traffic on Meadows Rd because there are going to be a lot of free market dwellings in this plan and we now have traffic which has already been created by the Health Center opening to the public, the restaurant opening to the public, the church at times, the pre-school at times and increased traffic from expansion of free market units. We have made our compromises right across our back fence and we would urge all of you on the Commission to adopt this as the entrance. John Shoemaker: I live exactly at the other end of the street from Jim and have for approximately 18 years. As Jim says I have also watched the traffic increase in volume. Meadows Rd was put in to handle the Meadows but the Meadows is going to dramatically change. Meadows Rd can't handle the traffic that is presently going down it. There is a turn in it right past Lorenzo's house and Lorenzo's fence you can't see who is coming. It is really quite dangerous. I think everyone involved in what is going to 18 PZM9.25.90 happen at the Meadows is happy including the Physicists with 7th st as being the new and proper entrance. I hope you consider that. Mary Anne Shoemaker: I live in the same house as John. This has been going on--I feel like we moved into our house on Monday and John started going to meetings on Tuesday 18 years ago. And this has been going on for 18 years. I feel like finally we have gotten down to all of these discussions, compromises and I think that Chick and Ruth are a little like (spoke very softly and I couln't hear the rest of what she said) (Applause) Frank Peters: I am here to represent my minority opJ.nJ.on from City Council since we voted last night 4 to 1 over my objections to endorse this masterplan and send it on to the P&Z. I would first like to thank Bill Kane who has worked over many months on this masterplan and has been a tremendous facilitater. I am 1 of 4 Council members who have been through the process from the beginning all of the public hearings on this masterplan. I offer my sympathies to P&Z to try to ferry out what it is exactly they are supposed to be doing at this point. I think what I envisioned when we began the masterplan was something of what Bill Kane tried to describe and that was a broad community parameter for what would be acceptable at the Aspen Meadows and to allow the P&Z and the applicant to come forward with a plan that had some chance of success so we wouldn't go through the process of encouraging applications and then rejecting them. The Council, I think, is trying to give some direction to take the direction from the community and give some direction to the applicants to produce something that was acceptable. I don't think this plan is that solution. But that is my minority opinion. I think that the original plan the Council was close to adopting when we received an offer from the Consortium the proposal to add some townhomes to add some single family residences and to change the configuration of the hotel rooms. All that basically happened in my opinion at the 11th hour after a lot of the public comment after the facilities program, after public meetings. I am not going to go into detail on many of the problems I have with the plan you have before you. I think fragility you see in the plan though is what you perceive as kind of the Son of Frankenstein here. That is it is not just the land use plan. It is a land use plan and a real estate deal between the City Council and the non-profits. That is my perception. I am sure 19 PZM9.25.90 that is your perception. wrestle with that problem. responsibility in land use and your conscience. I don't know how you are going to How you are going to deal with your matters is for you and your judgement I would just like to focus the P&Z on one issue that is very disturbing to me. It has kept me from being able to endorse this plan and it goes back to the 7th st vs 8th st access. Right now you have in the pink down below that 45, OOOsqft of PUD and subdivision and eventually be 4 single family homes and the relocation of the road. I think the road does have impact. I tried during the masterplanning process to keep the road impact to a minimum so that people could stay on 8th st. In my opinion it was a result of the 11th hour compromises that lead some of the Meadows Rd homeowners to reject the additional traffic on that road. I see that as an issue. I also see it as an issue where the road is presently located and in my opinion it is also precipiticiously close to the circle of serenity. I would like to close my comments by observing that this additional traffic is gOJ.ng to pass as close to the Physics Institute where scientists will be thinking about electrons and positrons. Florence Adams: I live on Meadows Rd. The Physics Inst operates 2 to 3 months of the year. We live there 12 months of the year and we are greatly impacted. steen Gantzel: I live on Meadows Rd. Due to the discomfort of this meeting tonight to see that the compromises were made and to have the member of the City Council come in and give a pitch in the face of all the compromises that made this whole thing actually go and I am here not by petition. I live on Meadows Rd so I question a little bit the complete strength and the objectivity of the petition that was presented to you. I would like to remind ourselves the physical actual things that are going to happen in the future, the exact location of the entrance at 7th st, the size of the houses, where they are going to be located--those are things that are going to happen in the future. But basically, conceptually all the things that have been presented are really well done. If you break any of these basic agreements that have been made I see a great deal of danger if you do that. 20 PZM9. 25.90 Ramona Markalunas: I have photographs of the race track which I wanted you all to see. The race track area today is a major resource of this community. It is used not only by the west side neighbors but by everybody in town. We see joggers from clear across in Riverside, people with their dogs and so forth. I just wanted you to see these photographs because they show the race track when it was truly a race track. Now none of us expect it to come back as a race track. We have all enjoyed it as have many people in this community for some 20 to 30 and 35 years. Meadows Rd was built by the Aspen Co when the Meadows were built out there as a new access. They did not take 8th st through and that is why the turn comes. Because 8th st would have gone through the race track. A lot of us objected when the Aspen Co extended the tennis courts in the early 1970s because it extended into the race track, cut the jogging trail which the Institute had used in conjunction with the ? for the Health Club that were carried on. Our petition tried to get people that were in the 7th st neighborhood. We were not trying to get the Meadows Rd people. So there are several people on Meadows Rd that are conspicuously absent tonight. And they too have been concerned in the past about the racetrack. Aspen has always gone first class. The race track of the Fair Grounds which is now the Meadows used to belong to the city and the County. Hallam Lake used to belong to the City. And we had a dance pavilion, picnic pavilion, a board walk and boats on the lake so that people could go down there-- the public mind you--could use these facilities. We are all very happy to have the Aspen Institute. In the 1940s everyone was ecstatic. We have all participated in their programs through the 40s and the 50s. Now it is more of a real estate developer that says we have to have a road through the race track when Meadows Rd could be upgraded to service between the tree lines that go there and be a very adequate service to that area and you are right we need a traffic study. Through all of these proposals we have no true traffic study and so therefore we have nothing to base or any indication of the traffic on either access road. John Doremus: I have been enjoying the race track area for as long as I can recall. My neighbors have and I think I am sensi ti ve to the historical elements in the community. But I have got to tell you the race track area is the race track area. As a race track it is worthless. It isn't worth a cockeyed thing. For 20 years it has been busted up with tennis courts and it don't exist anymore. The value of the race track is it's open space which I value very highly as someone who lives very close to it. This plan preserves 95% of that very valuable open space "'"'. 21 PZM9.25.90 as well as providing Institute facilities. not what is important. this plan preserves it. Herb Klein: Personally I would just like to say I associate with what Bill Kane said earlier. This is your plan. Under state law you get to decide. The city Council doesn't get to decide. They can't veto your plan. So it is yours. And I don't think you should feel that anything is being shoved down your throat. You need to take a good hard objective look at this plan and come up with something that makes sense from a planning point of view. I have very much respect for this Commission. I think you know how to do that. I am not going to tell you how to do that. And I am just going to ask you that if you think that this realigned 7th st access makes sense from a Planning point of view, go ahead and adopt it. But if you don't think it makes sense from a planning point of view, don't approve it and don't allow political compromise which was achieved at the last minute without much public debate. a much, much better entrance to the So forget about the race track. That is What is important is the open space. And I sat through these meetings for a year and there were the first alternatives that kept 7th st just the way it is and that was the recommendation--council's alternative #3. Then something happened in July and what came out of it was a re-Iocated Meadows Rd and I think Andy and the 8th st people did a great job in doing that but this is the time--it is not too late. In fact this is really the first time that this plan is coming before this Board for approval and for public comment. So I think that you have the authority to deal with it objectively and you are not by no means in a position to have to rubber stamp something that the council did. The other comment is on behalf of a client, Mr. Leonard Lauder, who lives near the Music tent. He is very concerned about the easterly location for the rehearsal facility. And the current masterplan drafts says that that building would be built in one of those two locations. And we would ask you to take a real hard look at the easterly location. We feel it is an intrusion on the residential neighbors right across the street there. One of the goals in the masterplan was to internalize the impacts and we feel that the westerly location will do that. The easterly location although it is in the boundaries of the Meadow really does have an external impact, especially for the rehearsal facili ty. It is introducing a new use with substantial impact and noise, primarily noise and visual impacts and we would like you to take a look and try and determine whether or not you think that easterly location is suitable relative to those kinds of impacts. 22 PZM9.25.90 David Taylor: I live at 618 West Smuggler. I am against this 7th st new proposal. The Physics Center is there and used by the Physicists for 3 months out of the year. But the rest of the time pre-school kids use it at Montessori and this will create a lot more traffic in that particular area. All those kids walk down 6th st and they are liable to run into much more traffic than they have right now at the present time. I really can't see why anybody would really consider another access to the Meadows because you have got one--a straight B-line right from Main street right down to the Meadows right now. King Woodward: I would like to say something. As we all sit in this room to say that we use the property around the Aspen Meadows or the Music Tent as a public place. But the reason that people have been using it is because the owners, the original owners and the present owners have let people use the property. It is a private piece of property. And people just indicate that that race track--the reason that you use that piece of property is because the previous owner and the present owner have let the general public use the piece of property. And I hope that everybody will consider that when they are talking about what is going on with this piece of property. Charlie Marqusee: I thought I would let Frank Peters and Chick know that Amy and I have attended every meeting and I think a lot of Chick's information was accurate. We did preserve the race track and if you look I think there is a scale preserving quite a bit of the race track. It is a compromise. There is 48,000ft of the race track and we will use up less than that. I strongly supported not going into the race track and as Frank knows at the meetings when we talked about plan #3, they asked me, Frank asked me and all the members whether people on Meadows Rd would go along with Meadows Rd as an entrance. And the answer was "Yes" in the spirit of co-operation. That was plan #3 which had 120 bedrooms. We are now talking 192 bedrooms. And there will be intensive traffic up by the commercial lodging. There were sacrifices as Jim Adams said. My north boundary is the south boundary of the track. I am within 5ft of this dark black line. I was approached by the group to see if I had any objections. Two things--one is that my house only uses 270ft. It only uses 120ft and 150 sort of comes out at 7th st by that time. It narrows down and the answer was that they could use whatever they wanted to compromise. Also in order to make what I guess was a compromise by not working in the back. Otherwise there would be no additional units and we would have a race track open and another 4 houses and so on. But more important than this is the scale I am giving up not bisecting the 23 PZM9.25.90 track but around the peripheral of the track. One possibility is the road will go right along this line right next to my house will be adjacent to it within 5ft of it the back yard or 4 houses or there will be a road within 5ft of the house and either one was a compromise. I think we are all making compromises and when they went from plan 3 which was 120 units to plan 4 the planner said you have to use 7th st there is too much traffic. Plan 4 had 168 rooms. Plan 3 had 120. We are now talking about 192 bedrooms and Chick also talks and everything he said was accurate. I have the minutes of the Blue Ribbon Committee which was set up for 18 months and had 7th st. There is no place between the present day, 1975 and the present day with the exception of Plan #3 whichever had Meadows Rd as the entrance. One thing that hasn't been covered is Meadows Rd as a 40ft ROW, 7th st as a 75ft ROWand the big difference and the number polled obviously that are impacted are greater. When Chick talks about 100ft setback, I know people who are less than 5ft setback on Meadows Rd. Don Swales: I have been concerned about the traffic problem in the west end for a number of years. Obviously the easiest thing would have been to put the parking lot in the rink or the riding area. It would have solved everything. It was too far for that. But it looks like the 7th Ave approach historically has always been considered the way to handle the west side traffic problem. And I think that all the compromises it appears to definitely be the way to handle the traffic problem. With all the compromises I think we have gone far enough with the nitpicking. I think this thing has stretched on. I think we are trying to re-invent the wheel. Chick, you are re-inventing. Markalunases, you are re-inventing. Frank, you have always been against the Meadows and anything that had to do with them. So we know where you are coming from. But I think it is time to do some action. Everybody is compromising. The vote was 4 to 1 on City Council which mind boggling. It is time to take what we have got--the feedbag and not re-invent the wheel. Carol Craig: I live in the west end. And I want to say that I can't understand what either the P&Z or the City Council is thinking of because on the one hand you are talking about more open space--buying it. Here is some that you have and you want to put a road there. Roads take up a lot of room and impact open space completely. Gideon: I think you have seen tonight why this has been so difficult. You have neighbors on both sides who are impacted. It is a very difficult decision. That is why the city Council 24 PZM9.25.90 took a whole year. You don't have the benefit of that whole year to reach this decision. They have come up with what all the parties, the non-profits and people that have been participating in this process all along thought was a good plan. The most important thing I wanted to dissuade you from was some concept that the plan somehow dramatically changed at the end without the public being able to participate in this. We were told what the city Council wanted to do was to examine this particular property, come up with an ideal plan. And then the second phase was going to be was there a way to make this work economically. During the second phase this became difficult. Compromises were being in it's final plan. I think it is a good plan. The people have worked hard on it. Not everybody is going to be happy. But you cannot have a plan for the Meadows that is going to make everybody happy. But I encourage you to listen to the majority of the City Council who spent a year. There were people that went to meeting after meeting and go along with that majority and adopt this plan which is in front of you. There was no further public comment and Welton closed the public portion of the meeting. Welton: This is the masterplan for the Meadows property. It is not the SPA. It is not a highly detailed plan. It is a starting point for the SPA process in which final locations of the roads, a lot of detail is to be worked out. Elements of the masterplan could be adopted tonight or the whole masterplan could be adopted tonight and if there are elements that prove problematic, the masterplan adoption could be amended at a future date. Personally I never for the last 15 years never understood the reason for moving the access road from the Meadows Rd to 7th st. But for 15 years it has been the consensus of everybody else in Council. Amy: There is a pretty tight schedule associated with the plan. It is really tight to--a sufficient delay would impact it. We mentioned at the beginning that we scheduled another date with the Planning Commission October 16th which would also be a public hearing at that time we are planning on bringing back a resolution and a final plan. I don't think that you are going to be at closure at that meeting and we may need to have an interim meeting--more of a work session on a special meeting time because your regularly scheduled meetings are already full to discuss this in more depth so that on the 16th we could finally adopt a plan. So I would recommend setting up a special meeting. 25 PZM9.25.90 MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Meadows until Special meeting on Tuesday October 9, 1990. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce then notified clerk that he will be out of town on the 9th. Meeting was adjourned. ~,,- 26