Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19901009 A~C; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Graeme Means, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Bruce Kerr and Richard Compton arrived later. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS Amy: I want to talk a little about the process of tonight I s meeting. There has been a lot of confusion over this. We had 2 meetings scheduled for the Planning commission to review this plan. The first one was August 28th. The Planning commission heard the plan, made comments. We then took those comments back to the council, received Council's endorsement and we had planned to come back to the Planning commission on September 25th for a public hearing for adoption. At that meeting I mentioned to the Planning commission that there was a noticing error and we had to continue it to a public hearing on October 16th. So the public hearing for final adoption is October 16th because it was not noticed properly in the paper. At the September 25th meeting Planning Commission continued it to tonight so it is on your agenda as a public hearing but it has not been officially noticed as a public hearing and it is up to the chairman as to whether you want to take public comment or not at this meeting. Welton: We are not going to take public comments on the Meadows tonight because it is not a public hearing. We had a publ ic hearing 2 weeks ago. We will have a public hearing a week from tonight. This is going to be a work/study session between the applicant, the applicant's representatives, the Planning Office and the Planning & Zoning Commission. It is not a public hearing. It wasn't noticed as a public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. PZM10.9.90 RESOLUTION MAROON CREEK BRIDGE DESIGN MOTION Roger: I move to adopt the resolution of the Maroon Creek Bridge Design. Jasmine seconded the motion. Welton: Does anybody think it kind of missed the point a little bit? Roger: I think it purposely did. Tom Baker: I focused on the 2 that I felt were the 2 pieces of direction I got. #1 was that the highway--any new bridge to be designed so that it uses the current highway alignment and that the design of the new 4-lane bridge and 4-lane highway should be undertaken concurrently to insure the best design for the community. Welton: There wasn't a "WHEREAS" the cart is before the horse. Baker: I can add a WHEREAS to that affect. Welton: Or WHEREAS the location of the bridge is not or the design profile and aesthetics of the bridge can't be determined without knowledge of what happens at either end of it. Baker: I will add those WHEREASes. I am going to the County P&Z next Tuesday and if there are only technical amendments like this one then I will bring it back so that it can be signed by you. Welton: This didn't seem to be any sense of the frustration of both P&Z's that we were being asked to decide something in pretty much of a vacuum. Baker: So I should add a WHEREAS that speaks to the design of the bridge not be done in a vacuum-that we have to understand what is happening on each side of the bridge in terms of the highway alignment to understand how best the design. Welton: And that NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we say the direction we can give you are these 2 directions--these 2 points. That choosing A or choosing B is not appropriate now. Graeme: I personally felt that #1 is kind of a limiting thing. If the whole thing is going to be looked at with the highway then it will either become apparent that the present alignment is best 2 PZM10.9.90 or not. But I think it is limiting to say that. And I didn't feel that it was kind of a consensus here. It is like the most important thing in that there are 2 items and this is the first one. There might be a cost consideration or it is just really expensive to do that or there might be a better way to do it. It seems to me that if we are going to be strong in saying what #2 is basically trying to say, we don't need #1 and it is a limiting kind of a factor. Welton: I got a real sense from both P&Zs that here was the Highway Dept presenting a plan that showed it in a totally new location abandoning the old location, tearing up 250ft of valley floor to the north of whatever side it is and that we wanted it basically where the existing bridge is. Whether that involved tearing down the old bridge and building up a new bridge in its place or re-paving the historic railroad bridge or moving that-- but generally leave at least 2 lanes where the 2 lanes are now and build 2 lanes, one side or the other-- Graeme: But that is putting you in a position of saying that the old bridge has to be taken down and, as we have been told, it can't be taken down. And there are some problems I think with that. Baker: That may not be a decision we can make. We are hearing fairly strongly out of the state Historic offices that our options are very limited as to what we can do with that bridge. Taking it down doesn't appear to be one right now. We don't have this in writing. Graeme: Then I just think that that limits a lot of things and I am not saying I don't think it should be there but I don't see any reason for it. Roger: Maybe one of the options right now is if the old bridge can't be moved or torn down, that basically we get the 2 new lanes built to the north of the existing bridge and we still utilize the old bridge. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. ADOPTION OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLAN Welton opened the public hearing. I continue this hearing to the 23rd of october. 3 PZM10.9.90 ASPEN MEADOWS MASTER PLAN Welton: The Aspen Meadows Master Plan was inadvertently treated as if it was a public hearing at the previous meeting. Because of the amount of public input that came at that meeting from primarily a couple of concerned citizens who live in the neighborhood we never got around to discussing it among the Commission members. Because there is a scheduled public hearing that falls within the proper sequence of the Masterplanning/Adoption program which will happen a week from tonight, this is not going to be a public hearing tonight. It was not noticed as a public hearing tonight. We are going to try to get some work done tonight to address not only the 7th vs the 8th st access but a lot of other concerns that people on the P&Z expressed frustration with 2 weeks ago that they didn't have a chance to discuss because the whole meeting was taken up on one issue. Bill Kane: The city council has adopted in concept a long range landuse masterplan for the Aspen Meadows. That has been referred to the Planning Commission for adoption. We are at this point after 15 years of intermittent planning activity dating back to 1975 when Arlo Anderson approached the City about re-zoning. We will begin with a discussion of land use. Secondly discuss access. Third the trails. Fourth the mitigation issue. LAND USE Bill Kane: What is proposed is the entire 85 acres is to ultimately achieve subdivision of this land that will result in non-profit ownership with the bulk of this land being owned by the Aspen Institute. A 10 acre parcel owned by the Music Associates. 5 acre parcel owned by the Aspen Center for Physics, the balance of this upper land owned by the Aspen Institute and then a Conservation parcel, 25 and 1/2 acres will be owned by public entity, the city of Aspen and Conservation oriented buyer. The elements of the land use--first of all an expansion of the lodging base from 60 rooms to 110 rooms which would be focused in the existing area of the west meadows. A second piece of the land use plan then is the renovation, remodeling, condominiumization and sale of the trustee houses. Those trustee houses will also have 3 units added to them, potentially 2 on the north end and one on the south end. 7 free market townhouse units would be built on the existing parking lot directly across from the tennis courts and 4 single family lots would be organized off of a new proposed 7th street. 4 PZM10.9.90 On the non-profit side of this proposal there are 2 major land use activities contemplated. One is the construction of a rehearsal facility and second is the expansion of the tent to build 650 seats up to 2,000 seats. Also contemplated in that land use program are a series of transactions that commit the plan to open space and conservation oriented uses. The first is the commitment of 25 and 1/2 acres of land along Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork. The second is parcels of land that would be deed restricted open space as a matter of the SPA process. The applicant would deliver these parcels with guarantees sufficient to satisfy the City that these lands would be deed restricted for open space. Graeme: It mentions in the packet about the Music Associates using that for faculty housing. Is that correct? Kane: Yes, but there are not specific controls. Both the townhouse units and the trustee units would be free market. Graeme: So there is not really any incentive for that to happen besides the proximity to the-- .'.'-" Kane: None other than the proximity and the opportunity to buy those units and make them on the market. Representatives of the Institute and Fritz and Robert and Parry are here. I think it would help if you have technical questions they might be able to respond to some of those things too. Gideon Kaufman mumbled something here. Welton: Is it at all feasible to develop some kind of incentive either through the method of property management of those townhouse and trustee units or some other mechanism to make it attractive for somebody that buys a unit to make the unit available for summer-long leases and that sort of thing. Such as structuring it with all the owners are under one property management firm and whether they take it off the rental market or put it on a rental market they pay the same fees so they might as well be getting some income--that kind of incentive/disincentive. Is anything like that feasible so that they don't become more vacant second homes and that they really do serve some sort of function other than somebody's little place in Aspen. Parry Harvey: I think that during the process of the SPA as Gideon said we talked about an exclusive right for the non- profits to purchase these before they go on the open market. Whether there are use agreements with a lodge operation and 5 PZM10.9.90 management and the kind of thing that you bring up as we get farther down the road we will definitely explore that. Originally when we had submitted the amended conceptual to you guys talked about lock-offs in some of these units for the benefit of the non-profits. And when we reduced the overall density on the property as part of the compromise during the masterplanning process, that was no longer something that we could absolutely agree to up front. We are all of thing. going to work as we go through the SPA process and refine the agreements back and forth to develop that kind of So you guys will get definitely an opportunity for input. Welton: Some of these mechanisms would perhaps make it a little more difficult to market the unit but on the other hand it might make it a more attractive to allow the use to be a true residential adjunct to the academic uses. I would like to see that stay on the table Jasmine: The rehearsal facility and the size of the rehearsal facility and the use of the rehearsal facility has come up several times. I think the language in the plan as it stands is not sufficiently restrictive to preclude it turning into another full scale performance facility which is what I think a lot of people on the Commission would like to avoid. And I would like perhaps at the SPA stage to tighten that up a little bit. Graeme: I personally feel that there is an opportunity to have public performances there. And maybe it might be that a majority don't feel that that should be encouraged but I think at this point without having had a lot of input on it I think even winter concerts could be a great benefit. And so I would be on the other end of that in terms of looking at it and trying to encourage performances there if they didn't seem to have a big impact. Sara: Of the 110 lodge rooms, that would be operated as an independent lodge, independent of the Institute. Gideon: The intention of that is that as the housing base in the summer time for the Institute. And the Institute either operate it or we will seek to have an operator operate it for us. It will be utilized by the non-profits in the summer time. He mumbled more. Kane: The rational for size 110 rooms came from a fairly extensive series of programing with the Aspen Institute. That number was arrived at by an Institute statement of what their program was. Their logic was to locate on site just enough in '- 6 PZM10.9.90 the way of short term accommodations to deal with academic needs and then the economic plan was to allow that to operate as a commercial lodge operation during the winter months so that it could operate economically. But there is an assumption in the plan that that is housing for Institute or other non-profit academic participants during the summer months. Graeme: So is there anything to prevent the Aspen Institute just from renting these 110 rooms the year around to generate the most income? Kane: There were not specific measures prescribed in the plan itself to insure that it would somehow be deed restricted for academic programs in the summer. Welton: Well, there has never been anything for the last 40 years that said that it can't run as any kind of hotel it wanted to be on a 12 month of the year basis. It just seems to not work very well for winter tourists. There is no change in the ground rules for it's operation as a hotel. Gideon: Basically we have dealt with the concept of the intent of the SPA to deal with sale. In other words there would be rights of first refusal. One of the main things we have addressed in the past is what if the Institute mumble____ so we have and will be in the SPA addressing these rights of first refusal that will give the opportunity for the other non-profits to purchase it. The number 110 is a tremendous reduction. That number comes from a basic number of programs to be run during the summer time--a certain number of executive seminar programs. The reason it is so important to have the base out there is the way these programs work is that there is an intensive time where you spend your mornings, afternoons, evenings and the concept of the process is that you are together. Right not we are at shortage and sometimes we have to put applicants outside of the campus which is not accommodating. We were willing to cut back our programs so that the 110 would maximize at that particular point in time. We have not at this point addressed what would happen if the Institute left but didn't sell the property. One of the things you have to understand that has happened to us now--the original plan in which the money necessary to renovate the lodging was going to be raised through the sale of the free market units. 7 PZM10.9.90 In the compromise that has taken place the Aspen Institute is going to have to raise between 6 and 8 million dollars to undertake the renovations. We are working both with Physics and Music to give them the same kind of preferential treatment that we will have if an operator comes in which is possible. We have not dealt with nor have we ever discussed obligating who it would be rented to. The whole purpose of this is for the Institute to run it's programs. If we leave Aspen and sell it, it is dealt with. The concept of leaving Aspen and not selling it is not something that we have addressed. Kane: One way of dealing with that would be to have a rental or right-of-first-refusal that would go to the rental of units in the event of that situation that would be similar to right-of- first-refusal at sale. So that if the Institute did not continue it's presence in Aspen and still own the property and still operate it as a commercial operation that the other non-profits would have right-of-first-refusal for rental of those units so that it insures that it stays into a non-profit kind of operation in the summer. ACCESS Kane: In the masterplanning process that we went through with City Council numerous public hearings were conducted and we tested basically in a public hearing form 5 alternatives for the land. In terms of access the theory was that there were 3 land-use alternatives that because of the level of traffic generation that impact there were 3 schemes that were deemed to be adequate for service with the existing 8th and Meadows road. Kane demonstrated on maps access routes. Conceptually thinking about 7th vs 8th has been dealt with. The fact that if you kind of count them up 7th st. has a much more public institutional character to it than 8th st. If you look at land uses on 7th with the Forest service, Baptist Church--most of the residences on this street do not address the street directly. They turn and take access off of either Francis or Smuggler or North and don't take access directly off of 7th. So the view was additional traffic an entrance to the that this is the street that could carry both in terms of land use and ROWand provide property directly. The other hard reality to this is that we are coming to you after almost 2 years of very careful kind of evaluation of alternatives 8 PZM10.9.90 as the plan has been recycled 8 times. resolving this access was to meet with these property owners. The key ingredient in each and every one of Amy: I think the plan as presented has really open for 7th st to come in. staff would prefer homesites on the south side of the new entrance. Council felt that the options should be left Planning Commission to consider where that new actually come in. 3 options left to see those 4 However, city open for the 7th st would Council did express a preference for having those homesites at the south side but they didn't limit that. And I think that is one issue that may need to be brought in with the access. It can either go in on the south side, it can loop in and have one house on the north side or it can come right along the properties lying at the bottom and come up along the Cottonwood Trees. Welton: In fact the precise location of that access road is not a necessary element of the masterplan which is our first step to adopt that masterplan but could be refined and further negotiated during SPA process and is not necessary one way or the other for the adoption of the masterplan. Roger: I was an early advocate of the 7th st plan. But that was an entirely different plan than this one. My problem is I don't see the justification of 7th st. You mentioned it went from a threshold of 3 to 4. But how much did it get into 4? I have got really problems with this because 7th st all of a sudden starts defining the open space and to me to lose the open space to the benefit of the people driving their cars and I think we have our priorities skewed here. I would prefer pulling Meadows Rd to the southern boundary and having the lots to the north of that. (He then demonstrated on maps.) I am not in favor of cul-de-sacing 8th st. I am not into cul-de-sacing streets for no reason. You take up more area there in the cul-de-sac than you would by coming in through a 90 degree intersection into the Meadows Rd. So if that plan stays in this alignment I very least think we should move 8th st into an intersection with Meadows Rd. A plan I would prefer is not accessing Meadows Rd to 7th st but keeping Meadows Rd as it is shown here but bringing it down to 8th st and then accessing this property as it is by driveway easements in this area. That cuts down an awful lot of space devoted to road which I just don't feel is necessary for this project. 9 PZM10.9.90 Richard: It seems to be a minimal change to precipitate this development of a new road and it is not one of the priori ties that we are trying to create in this City for auto disincentives and alternatives to have an automobile use. I understand the concerns of the people on this street that don't want 100 more cars per day driving past them but I think there are other ways to address that with the traffic plan. Those townhouses and those trustee units could be limited to 2 cars per unit and also be included in the transportation provided for the academic facilities so that there is the option to take a shuttle into town. To me that is the way to address the problem rather than building a new road. If we do chose the option of for 7th st access I don't understand the need to run it on the north leg there east of the Cottonwoods. That Cottonwood boulevard is one of the attractive features of driving into the Meadows and rather than putting it out into the Sage I would prefer to bring it straight across and join 8th st and work out a traffic plan that mitigates the traffic on 8th st. I would second Roger's comment on using 7th st as a driveway access for the houses. Kane: Under the mitigation measures that are prescribed in the plan there is pretty clear direction to encourage site planning and design for the new lodge units to be managed from the standpoint of auto circulation. And the notion of building units and having parking space in the front of each of the units is pretty clearly discouraged and the idea being that a couple of things can be done. One is that the parking requirements of 1 space per unit or .75 spaces per unit. The second is to look at ways to organize that parking so it is not directly adjacent to units so that clearly there is vehicular access and circulation of the units and drop off when it is convenient but it also would be very attractive to get that parking and the vehicle away from those units so it is a pedestrian environment. You will have a real opportunity to look at that in detail at the SPA submission level. There are also some specific mitigation measures in the plan that will require mandatory limo service to the lodge so there will be major dependence on public transportation oriented functions. So you will not get typical traffic generation levels from the units. Amy: The compromise was to try to move the road on the other side of the Cottonwood trees so as to mitigate the impact to the residents along Meadows Rd and that is why it was moved on the other side to create a buffer between those homes and the traffic 10 PZM10.9.90 that would be going in and out of the Meadows with a 110 room lodge. If the commission wants to put the access back onto the existing Meadows Rd I think that you should consider stricter mitigation measures than are currently noted in the plan for traffic control. Right now we have a shuttle for MAA performances and perhaps that shuttle could be expanded to go every 30 minutes from the lodge to the music tent to the Rio Grande parking facility and back again on a continual basis all summer which would serve the whole facility and not just the performances perse which might reduce the traffic on the road in conjunction with the limitation on parking as you have discussed. Roger: I would like to see some sort of transit ROW connection designated on that property for future needs of the transportation. I just saw a Taxi-2000 out at Snowmass. It is a quiet means of moving people. At this point I think it is time to put in the land use planning process that type of ROW through the property. Graeme: I have stated a preference for a 7th st access. After having thought about that I am not sure I feel good about that in that it is maybe adding more pavement trying to solve the problem. The way I see it the advantages of 7th st are that it does provide better access for the Meadows. It impacts less residences and it keeps this whole plan moving along. The disadvantages are that it uses up really precious open space and in my mind it impacts the campus more. I also think that there have been some other suggestions like Roger's where either using one way streets or accessing the 4 single-family houses differently from the Meadows. We haven't even been given any numbers on how many more vehicles per day or anything else so we have not been given a whole lot to go on here. It puts us in a difficult situation. I would like to ask the non-profits which access they prefer and if they feel that the 7th st access would impact any of their operations. Gideon: Physics made the largest compromise because they were the ones who had the most problem by the new 7th st. And yet as vigorously as they fought for their circle of serenity, they were willing to go along with this plan. All of the non-profits have made compromises. However the new 7th st access is something that we are all supportive of as we are with the final adopted plan. The big concern that we have is 11 PZM10.9.90 that next May there is another election. We are on a very tight time frame. Even if you adopt this masterplan, to be able to achieve our final approvals before a new election, if the same thing happens with a new city council comes in with a different perspective than this city Council then we have got to start this whole process over again. This is not a perfect plan. But the non-profits are supportive of this plan as it has been provided to you by the City council. And we would like you to support it with all of its components including 7th st where it is. Mari: I have been serving on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee for the Pedestrian/Bikeway plan. And that gives me more of a bias toward the things that Roger and Richard have said. That is that if a development is going to produce a lot more traffic than 8th st can handle, either the development is too big or they need to come up with a plan to handle that traffic without bulldozing another road. My perception of it is that mainly it is a question of which set of neighbors do you want to impact or want to avoid impacting. And I am not overwhelmingly convinced that it is necessary to come up with a whole new access. And without being really overwhelmingly convinced I just don't see supporting a totally new road. Welton: My thoughts are that-yes at the SPA level we are finding traffic counts and traffic studies and trying to devise yet the first fool-proof way of getting people out of their cars that has ever been invented in this community. I really cannot imagine that the traffic generated by the lodging aspect of this property is going to change that much. I really don't think it is going to be so dramatic a change that it is going to overwhelm the neighborhood. What I can imagine is the possibility that people coming one way or another that are going to a concert on a Sunday afternoon will funnel straight into 7th st and go straight to Gillespie st and then jam Gillespie st and more quickly clog up that area on a Sunday afternoon. Conversely I can't imaging people really changing their traffic patterns from the historic patterns to get to a concert on a Sunday afternoon. Most people go up 3rd or 4th or 5th or they try to go up a less congested street, find a less congested place to park if they are driving and sort of filter through the whole west end on foot and in vehicles. And with proper kind of informational signage, coupled with some other elements, I think it would be very clear that 7th st is 12 PZM10.9.90 access to the Meadows lodging and only to Meadows lodging. And that the traditionally 3rd st is the access to the tent and Paepcke Auditorium. They are 2 separate entities. It is not going to create a new funnel. It is not going to change people's historic patterns to get to the Institute functions by going to the Meadows first. That is my way of saying OK when we get to SPA, let's work out a way that people who are going to the tent are not going to necessarily greatly impact 7th st but that they are comfortable using the historic means of access. As far as this masterplanning process is concerned the Cottonwood trees on both sides of the current Meadows road--those were planted when Meadows road was built in the mid 50s. So it is not inconceivable that in 10 or 20 years we could have recreated the same kind of ambience of a tree-covered canopy going over a Meadows Rd that has been moved 50ft or however many feet. That entry experience could be recreated within a generation. I am not saying that relocation is the way to go at this time. The compelling thing to me is that 7th has got the church. It has got the Forest service, It has got much fewer residences and it seems to work better. It seemed to work better 10 years ago and I would be in favor of adopting the masterplan and refining exactly the location whether it stays on Meadows road or the Meadows road gets moved. Or whether it goes between Lot #3 and Lot #4 or goes along the south property line or the north property line. In general I think the masterplan should be adopted as it is presented. Roger: I was not advocating leaving Meadows Rd on the old Meadows Rd. I was advocating leaving it as shown on the map--the new location of Meadows Rd. By doing that in effect you eliminate the numbers of Meadows Rd in the comparison and if you go south of North st and look at the numbers of residences involved, it looks roughly equal from the 1980s aerial that I am looking at. But on top of that it looks like to me that the residences along Main street are much closer set to 7th st than the residences along 8th st. If the numbers are equal, the impact is greater on 7th st. That concerns me. I think that should be looked at. Fritz Benedict: Richard talked about what a nice avenue that is with the trees. If the road is kept there then the ute Trail has to be moved over. Where the road is being suggested it is an 13 PZM10.9.90 extension of 7th. And you also said that we are trying to think of alternate ways of getting around--walking and on bikes. I am surprised you don't see that that is such a fantastic great avenue now for walking and riding a bike. Let me show you a picture I took out there. (He showed an absolutely fantastic picture) (Also a huge amount of paper rattling here) The Mayor walks his dogs here every morning. As the track goes out here then it is not as attractive with the trees on one side. In 30 years they will be as big as these. Mari: When you are talking about the path, what path? Fritz: I am talking about narrowing down that road-- Mari: You are talking about the existing Meadows Road becoming a trail ? Fritz: And narrowing it down to say 16ft or so, so it is still a promenade that is a very attractive and wide place where you don't have these people that are worried about being bumped into on a bike. Bill and I had a little argument about this. He wanted to tear it all up and make a narrow twisting road. But I think it should be followed as a boulevard--the kind of thing you see in some cities like Paris where there are very wide and generous walkways. Fritz was still talking here but so were some Commission members and I couldn't here him. Fritz: wider, it the and a road over here or a path and the road would be is true. But you are going to be carrying out some of to put in the path. Then Kane answered Fritz but I could not hear over the others still talking. Welton asked if we were having separate meetings. Fritz: What I am thinking of that would be great and I haven't talked to the neighborhood about this but you all know how popular this pedestrian route is from the northwest corner of the Jerome all the way out to the tent. There are no crossroads all along that way along Lake street. It is a great route for bikers and walkers. Well, if you continue that along the north side and add a 10ft wide paving on the north side of Gillespie there would be this crossing and there would be another crossing down here where that 14 PZM10.9.90 new road comes in. But all the way from practically the center of town all the way to the Institute you could go along and only have 2 road crossings. Amy: There would be one where 7th st came in, wouldn't there? Fritz: Well, I was suggesting keeping it on the north side of 7th st, crossing here. There would be 2 crossings then. It would be a great pedestrian route and there where you go by the Institute or the Physics I guess there has to--you push down to give them their serenity. Kane: You would just bring it right along that edge. Fritz: Yes, right. Kane: And tie it in with 7th. Graeme: I think that brings up a really good point. The trails is something we are going to talk about next but if we choose an alignment without considering whether there is going to be room for a trail or how the trail is going to go through there, we might get ourselves in a bad situation. And so I think we need to discuss the trails and get an idea from Bill or Amy about what they are thinking so far has been. I think this idea of Fritz's is really good. And I think we ought to--nobody wants a road, but everybody would like to encourage a good trail. Maybe we should get a good trail in there and then make sure that that is working before we put the road in. Kane: I am trying to keep score so we have some direction about what to bring back to you on the 16th. So far I have got Welton, Mari and Roger. I put you under 8th, Roger. Roger: That is good enough for the moment. Kane: I have got Welton as 7th and Mari as 8th. fair to poll the Commission? Would it be Welton: In general without committing to--without promising your first born or anything like that--would you be inclined at this point to go with 7th or 8th. Richard--8th, Graeme--Question mark, I am serious in that I think this needs to be looked at. Roger--8th, Mari--8th, Sara--I like 7th st but then I don't want the new road. I like sort of Roger's plan. She went on in more detail here but there was a 15 PZM10.9.90 sub-meeting going on so I couldn't hear. Bruce--I am in favor of the plan. Like I said 2 weeks ago I ~m a little bit puzzled by this whole procedure that we are go~ng through. Each of us had the opportuni ty to attend the Council meetings when this plan was being arrived at. We had the opportunity to talk about access so the answer is I am in favor of the plan. I would have voted for the plan last week. If I were designing the thing, I wouldn't draw a road on 7th st. That is the bottom line. But I am not designing the thing. I am trying to get a compromise through and get this Meadows project off of dead center and get it approved and let's go on with our lives and worry about something else. Jasmine: I like Sara's modified 7th st plan. Coming in through 7th but not--I would like to see 7th come through more this way, either merging with 8th or moving it--I just don't like this part of the 7th st turn. Welton: For purposes of adoption of this masterplan then I think whether it happens on the north side or the south side of those 4 lots it could be considered as an SPA topic to be hammered out during the SPA process. But the big question is whether it is 7th or 8th. I think we need to look at what, in fact, that is. That is do you have open space on the right hand side as you are driving into the Meadows or do you drive between houses on both sides? And those houses are the people that are having the benefit of having that open space as their extension of their back yard. That is a minus to the plus of having the road along the south property line. Is a road more or less open space than a person's yard or house? That is another issue we can grapple with at SPA. I think you have 4 more or less stay on 7th and once we get into the property, let's refine it. You have got 3 that are in favor of keeping it on 8th st and yet one person that claims to be a question mark. It was suggested to ask Charlie Marquee's comment at this time. Welton: I think what they are talking about is instead of runn~ng the access road on the north side of those 4 new lots, runn~ng it on the south side of those 4 lots and connecting in with the Meadows Rd. Charles Marquee: As road coming in from right next to the concern I would have far as Helga and I are concerned the access Main & 7th and hugging on the south side house is agreeable to us. The only is when you get to the north end-Jim Adams. 16 PZM10.9.90 He has R-15 zoning and he is willing to go along with not R-15, not R-6 but mUlti-family next to him is that when you get up there that it be on the other side of the-- Roger: We are not talking about impacting Jim Adams. Welton: I don't think we are talking abut saying definite thumbs up or thumbs down to a new Meadows Rd or an old Meadows Rd. In fact we are not even making that as a yes or a no but that in general up until you get to the point of the Meadows property that 7th st vs. 8th st is the preferred. And what happens once you get on the Meadows property whether it hugs the south property line, the north property line or whether there is access by driveway or-- As you have said in previous meetings it didn't matter to you whether it was on one side or another side. Consistency is appreciated. Amy: (Showing on map) I think there are 2 options. One is to keep the access on 8th st Meadows Rd in the Meadows but to move it at this point straight over on the other side of the Cottonwood trees so it is away from these neighbors. But you are coming in--not putting in a new road on 7th st. The access to these 4 lots would then be through driveway easements into that. I was just thinking that that may sol ve a lot of people's concerns because it moves the traffic on the other side of the Cottonwood trees. It allows for the trail where the existing road is and it doesn't put a road on the race track any more. We just use driveways. The other option was to take 7th st across here and then use the existing Meadows road. Rog7r: We should maybe get a gist of the Commission mov~ng the north/south alignment of the Meadows Rd existing alignment to just to the east of the trees. I am happy with moving the road to the east side of the trees. That doesn't disturb me at all. I think the benefit is between the trees we got a wonderful alternate trail alignment. So we get some real benefit there. as far as from the Welton: On a straw vote basis who would prefer to see that last section of the road be moved east of the trees. The count on this was 5. Welton: Now we are talking about the section outside of the Meadows property and that is whether 7th or 8th st. 17 PZM10.9.90 Those in favor of 7th st? The number was 4. Those in favor of 8th st? The number was 4. Those in favor of both if it can happen? The number was 6. Roger: And I think what that means is tying in 8th st to the 90 degree intersection. Kane: Well I think the consensus here is that what we will have as a plan that would show the 7th st pretty much as drawn however 8th will come up and intersect with the street at some point in this vicinity. Roger: Yes. That is the way I conceive it. Parry Harvey: Well, the street isn't resolved to the south or the north of the lots. Kane: We are going to defer that to the SPA. Harvey: OK. But I would like something on this visual portion of the masterplan that makes that statement. It is sort of like something you put on a final plat for recording or in the body of the text somewhere because this is the only visual aid in the masterplan. Kane: What we just described will be drawn for the 16th when this is done. Welton: Do we want to do a beauty contest judge's vote on south property line vs north property line? Harvey: I don't know that that has to be resolved because we are still doing a lot of engineering. But I just want to make sure that it is left open and this plan shows-- Kane: 8th will connect with 7th in this vicinity and then this roadway visa ve these lots will be open till SPA. Harvey: If 7th st comes in this way then that connection may well want to be made someplace else. Roger: Exactly. Harvey: That is all I want is a clear understanding that it is diagramatic. 18 PZM10.9.90 Welton: Well, I have seen skirting an issue before but coming down solidly on both sides is something new and different. I think we have resolved the access. Harvey: We have a 4-lane with 2 major properties. Welton: We have a 4-lane with houses and a median strip. TRAILS Kane: This issue that was unresolved at the last meeting was how to tie in this trail system along 7th to it's objective which is to get across the Roaring Fork River and tie in with the Rio Grande Trail. There were 2 general routing options for that trail. One was to follow this internal street network and go down past the trustee houses and follow this old dirt road down Paepcke Point. The other idea is to come in on 7th and then peal off somewhere between the Meadows Restaurant and where the swimming pool area is and then come down with one graded trail and then tie into this existing road down below. There is a roadway that is an old road down below that follows Castle Creek and has got a sewer line in it. We will call A past the trustee houses and this B. I think what we are showing on this plan is our recommendation that is preferred option. It just wouldn't have the switch-back in it. It would probably be one shot to take up this grade rather than have twisty turns in the trail because it doesn't accommodate bikes very well with that kind of geometry. The other issue that I think has been resolved was the responsibility for building these trails. And the resolution that cost-sharing scheme was for City Council. The price for this conservation parcel reflected the responsibility for the City to build those trails. There was some consideration given on the sale price of that land. And then this Grindley Bridge and the connection on the Rio Grande Trail up to the tent is still part of the plan. That has always been anticipated to be a public City responsibility anyway. So that is really not on the table. Harvey: I have not seen Fritz's plan. A trail coming through here and parallelling 7th st we had not anticipated for 2 reasons. We are taking responsibility for doing whatever is decided on Meadows Rd in terms of taking it and re-vegetating it and making the trail. We had not anticipated an expanded roadway 19 PZM10.9.90 on 7th st that would accommodate a trail next to it. that that pushes everything too much into the drive. What we had worked on with the City had been--the bridge crossing here and coming up here using 8th st as a pedestrian access. Then using the existing street network to get over to this point and then of course the trail coming down on the Grindley Bridge. We didn't want to put 8 to 12ft of additional--actually a lot more than that when you get a shoulder between the road separating it from the trail and then you have got to cross somewhere you are going to want to cross somewhere to get into Meadows Rd. We felt What we talked about doing was coming across to the Meadows Rd and using that as the pedestrian and separating the auto from there and to avoid getting into the circle of serenity and was to use and they have their maps with the different primary and secondary pedestrian corridors. And that kind of jibed with what they wanted to do. So we expect that all the final trail alignments will be done during the SPA. But that is where we were in the process. Roger: I think it is probably essential to try to get to the old Meadows Rd trail as reasonably directly as possible. I am looking at an old areal here that appears to show almost a path extending from Gillespie. There is a North st ROW there just to the south of the Meadows property on the other side of 7th. Getting that Gillespie connecting trail down to the North st there if that--it is still ROW but not a roadway at this point, to where it intersects 8th and that is where you cross people to get on the old Meadows Rd trail. Richard: Except that it is still 8th st. It is not the old Meadows Rd. In spite of Harvey's consideration about widening it I don't think the trail is really impinging that much on the open space. Roger: Oh, I agree with you. Richard: I think they cross parallel to 7th st and then crossing somewhere around where the cul-de-sac is pictured in that drawing. It would be the most direct route. If the trail crosses the road people are going to get on the road and follow the road. They aren't going to take the trail. So it is just a waste of trail construction. Kane: I think the questions for the Planning commission are 2. #l--accept the notion that people will use the west end grid street network and work their way over to 8th/Meadows Rd, probably 8th and Smuggler, then use the trail and get down that way. 20 PZM10.9.90 Or do you want to implement a trail that will through this parcel of land, parallel 7th and then get on the new 8th st trail in that vicinity. druthers? We can draw it either way. come directly cross over and What are your Welton: I didn't catch the difference. Kane: The difference is--One would be to bring the trail from Gillespie st--a pedestrian trail that will probably come across this property line closely on this senior Hallam piece--then parallel 7th st have to cross 7th st in this vicinity and then get on this existing 8th/Meadow Rd which will be a trail in the future. And then get access down to go that way. The alternative to that, if this trail does not exist, is to use these streets as a trail system which people walk in the streets in the west end. They walk this way come up to Smuggler over to 8th and then down 8th on a bike or walking. Roger: Also why wouldn't you continue the trail on the Gillespie alignment until it intersects the new Meadows Rd? Kane: Just being sensitive to these guys and trying to get traffic away from those buildings and the circle of serenity. Roger: OK but the trail is already there. In the areal picture it shows very clearly a trail continuing along this line right here from Gillespie just continuing straight across there--just continue--legitimize that trail to where it intersects with the Meadows Rd. Harvey: And then follow the Meadows Rd? Roger: Either cross at that point and have a trail on this side or a trail on the other side and cross. Gideon: Let me just say that all along they have fought for one thing. That is their circle of serenity. If you put a trail through the middle, you have got bicyclists, people that walk, people with their dogs off leashes. Bill Martin: The Mayor uses it to walk his dog every morning! Harvey: So what we are talking if there is a 40ft ROW a 50% ~ncrease in the ROW to do a trail paralleling that portion which is either going to push the houses farther out or create--- Welton: This idea is sort of like putting off the inevitable. But what about approaching it from a standpoint of acquiring 21 PZM10.9.90 separate trail easement for the future trail use. But in the meantime keep the bulk of trail traffic on streets as it is historically used and connected up higher or lower-- Kane: The other possibility is we are talking about a very short segment of roadway where the trail would have to parallel the new 7th st and maybe you don't implement the desired standard. Maybe the trail is in a separate alignment. Maybe there is just a strip section of that road and you just use the new 7th st from the shoulder of that 7th st for the trail. It is such a short segment. Then tie over into the new trail system. That makes a lot more sense actually. Welton: I think the streets in the west end are perfectly usable for bicycles and people walking and dogs and has been for a long time and will continue to be. Putting the easements in place will protect us in case the conditions intensify or change but I don't see any real problem with as long as you have a sign where a trail becomes a trail saying this is the "Bill Kane Trail" that if that entrance to the trail happens where the old Meadows Rd has been abandoned now but the easements are in place for the future that would satisfy me as a workable solution. Kane: Unless we hear otherwise we will proceed on the 16th to show a projected trail easement in that area to make that connection. Welton: Does anybody have a major variation to what I said. Amy: We can take the easement outside of the circle of serenity if you want. Welton: Yes. Amy: I would encourage you to get the easements. I think it is a good idea. The Institute said something at the last meeting that I found a little disturbing. They said "It is our property. We are allowing you to use that race track" . I think getting the easements makes it clear that the public could use the race track all the time. Even if we don't build the trails at least we have an easement. Welton: As far as the trails going down to that yellow section or in front of the trustee houses, I think we should have both. Kane: It is not going to be track set. not going to maintain it so it is not-- The Nordic Council is 22 PZM10.9.90 Gideon: Even though the City is paying for the thing itself, the one reason that the Institute would prefer to see trail alignment B is that a lot of our summer programs take place in the marble garden. So if you have a public access trail with bikes and tigers and dogs and everything-that would really impact our outdoor programs. We prefer not to have to be police people to people traveling right through there. Richard: Also it gets people into the riparian area more quickly rather than through people's driveways. Welton: But there is presently a dirt road that trails on past the end of the trustee houses. Would that still be in existence or would somebody go through there with a bulldozer and roll rock in it and make it hard to get through it? Harvey: You need the exercise, Welton. That would probably go back to whatever it wants to become simply because as we add the 2 new units to the end of the trustee houses you are going to be eliminating that access there in all probably. without doing a big cut into the hill and the retaining walls that would push that closer to the health club-- the access to that road, it wouldn't be needed and it wouldn't be there. Welton: What was it needed for before? Wasn't it used to take picnic tables and stuff down to picnic point? Harvey: It was used for that. have been used for-- I think historically it might Richard: It was an old County road. Kane: There are old building foundations down in there. ?: Slaughter house. Welton: Oh, good! If that is not the primary trail I think it probably had served some function in the past and probably should continue to serve some function in the future. Kane: I think clearly people in the lodge and the trustee units are going to walk down that old roadway. They are not going to double back by the health club. They will just walk down that road to get over to the Rio Grande trail. 23 PZM10.9.90 Welton: Parry, are you saying that the 2 townhouses are going to go directly in that old roadway? Harvey: That is right. As you take the same geometry and move that around the townhouses will actually be in the way of that. Welton: If it is no longer a road would it still be accessible by foot through there? Gideon: We haven't looked at that in terms of the retaining and how much room we have got there. Welton: You have the function of carports in those trustee houses as a function and fire truck access and I would think it would be very easy to keep a foot path or bicycle path. It should be very easy to maintain that. Does anybody else care that there might be only 1 vs 2 ways through there? Richard: Possibly a foot path rather than a full road cut that steps up to the health club or something like that, however to get through there. As somebody pointed out access to that part of the Institute for people who are there rather than having them to come back up around the restaurant. Graeme: I think we ought to be real sensitive to their request that they don't want a lot of traffic through there. I think it is a real legitimate request and I think there shouldn't be any kind of a trail going through there. Kane: Other than for informal use. Welton: I think it is clear that the primary trail is going down by the restaurant and only locals know about this trail. Harvey: Only locals will know it exists by going down behind the trustee houses. Once you are down in the riparian area that trail that leads up to that road is verv visible now and it will attract people. And if it is not signed or somehow revegetated or something it is going to generate a lot of traffic coming out. Richard: I think it would be signed as such that you are going back into a foot path rather than a full trail. MITIGATION Kane: In your plan there are 9 principle mitigation features which are intended to offset the impacts that the development program in this plan create. Those features are employee housing, regulation of vehicle sizes in the west end which almost 24 PZM10.9.90 has nothing to do with this. It is just a practical thing that the City can undertake. Concern arose during the masterplanning discussions that we would have semi-trucks delivering 1 loaf of bread to the Meadows restaurant. That is kind of a crazy situation and that the City should undertake vehicle size regulations--no vehicles over 24ft or whatever in the west end so that deliveries for the Meadows and lodge operation would be consolidated off site somewhere to cut down on truck traffic on the street. Amy: There are 3 components to the employee housing. The first is associated with the Institute's lodge expansion. As part of the compromise the Institute and the Music Assoc requested that their employee housing mitigation for the expansion of the tent and the employee housing requirements that are associated with the non-profits, the Music Associates, the expansion of the tent, the rehearsal facilities as well as the expansion of the lodge, the Aspen Institute requested it to be waived by the City Council. In order to do that we will need to adopt a code amendment. Right now the code does not allow the Council to waive housing mitigation fees and we will be processing a code amendment which is very tightly restricted to non-profit institutional uses probably on the Meadows property to allow for that to be waived. The other 2 components where the free market 4 single-family home lots and we just simply use the requirements in the code that we would use for growth management and the applicant is proposing to mitigate those to put in 4 deed restricted to price and income caretaker units. There are accessory dwelling units associated with those and the Council agreed to allow for either cash-in- lieu or off-site housing mitigation at the low income guidelines for the mitigation of the 10 new townhomes. Jasmine: I would just like to go on record as saying that I don't think it is a very good precedent to waive employee housing requirements for non-profits even though it is very specifically tied to a particular plan. What happens is when you waive employee housing requirement then nothing gets done and you are exacerbating the employee housing situation without anybody taking steps to remedy it. The city has to. Somebody has to. I think that just waiving it and putting a code amendment in that it is just waived without requiring the City to pick up the slack is really irresponsible. It is not the non-profits or the Consortium's fault but somewhere along the line it has got to be dealt with and I don't think that is the appropriate way to deal with it. Richard: How do you suggest the City pick up the slack? 25 PZM10.9.90 Jasmine: The city should determine what the usage would be--what the necessary employee generation would be and then embark on a specific plan with units that the city is constructing earmarked to be done at a time to--in other words if the city has determined that a certain amount of impacts are going to be generated by the non-profit use, the City has to agree to provide in addition whatever else is needed, that many more units, that the city is to build to mitigate. It has to be calculated in the employee generation figure somewhere and actually built. Graeme: It seems to me that the City is trying to address the problem on a bunch of different levels and if you do it specifically for this it is going to come out of one of their other programs. I am willing to waive it. I don't have a problem with it. Roger: I understand Jasmine's concern. The figures that we waive never end up being added to the shortfall that we are trying to deal with. And so to that degree I support Jasmine. But I am basically in favor of waiving it but let's get our accounting system for these things so we know what is happening to our shortfall. In this particular case for the non-profits it is essential for this whole program that it be waived. Richard: Are the lodging units out at the Meadows being taken out of the growth management quota in any way? Kane: city Council has agreed to change the submission dates. The date will be changed to February 15th. Amy: The units will be subtracted. Harvey: Did you say there was going to be a competition for the lodge units? Amy: Allor anything that is exempt in growth management whether it is historic or employee housing still is taken out of the quota. So even though it might be exempt, it still comes out of the quota. We do account for it. Mari: I think that when employee shortfall is figured, it is not just figured on what was waived. It is more based on the number of people who say they don't have a place to live and wish they did. No so much on what was waived. So I think that as far as accounting goes we have a handle on it. 26 PZM10.9.90 Amy: The housing production plan that you saw a couple of months ago, we really tried to base it on state figures on how many employees, how many people are working and we use those figures. Now the number of the additional employees that may be required by the lodge or the rehearsal facility would be accounted for in our annual update of that housing production plan because we do get figures from W2 forms so we will be able to account for those. The city is pursuing 3 projects right now that are over and above what we have acquired from applicants--East and West Hopkins and the property. The code amendment could consider something that you are talking about. It would have to be a direct relationship because future councils might not be building housing like this council is. So that is something we can consider when we bring that up here. Kane: #3 was non-diesel buses for MAA functions. #4 the Rio Grande shuttle. The notion of that was that the Rio Grande parking lot and the roof top garden now on top of the parking structure represents a pretty practical place for downtown lodging units for people to walk to a common point to be picked up and transported to the Meadows rather than everybody driving. The notion was to create kind of dedicated Rio Grande which is understand not dependent on people parking in that parking structure but a central location to collect people from the central business district to get them to the tent functions in the summer--IDCA and MAA. #5 is paid parking. The idea of paid parking restriction for MAA functions--the idea being that if you pay, then it is a disincentive scheme to make people think about taking transit or walking. #6 is mandatory limo service to the lodge. That is part and parcel of a larger kind of idea of restricting or relaxing the parking requirements for the lodge units so that the Institute will run a mandatory limo so people are transported from the airport and there is dedicated transportation to take people wherever they want to go on a demand basis for their whole stay. #7 is to improve the parking lots not only by paving but also changing the circulation and bringing transit people more internal to the lot so that Gillespie st isn't used for a transit center. #8 clarifies HPC review. And they were the extent of the mitigation that have been identified in the plan. 27 PZM10.9.90 Roger: I hope the rest of the P&Z will support future transportation easement of some sort through the Meadows property to link what is now 2 separate transportation entities. That is the Meadows and the non-profits. Transportation right now they are 2 separate entities and I would like to see an internal link in the future if we get a transportation system that can viably link those--not private automobile, not diesel bus but maybe transportation Taxi 2,000 or some other exotic thing in the future. Kane: So it is a reservation at this point. Graeme: I hear Roger's point and I don't think it is very far from one part to the other and I think a foot path--there is some wonderful walking there. Unless there is a downpour I really would myself I think and I think the non-profits would prefer not to see internal combustion engines or even electric whatever. But also there is a number of auto disincentives--limo incentive things--I wonder if something about encouraging pedestrian and bicycles should maybe be in here also and encouraging the trail that Fritz was talking about and has been through there. For instance right now to get to the tent you have to kind of walk through the parking lots and then if you are on a bike you should get off because there is too much foot traffic on there. But somehow trying to accommodate that and accommodating some bicycle racks or something which I think should be fairly well removed from the the tent. Kane: There are some right now by the ticketing booth. Graeme: But that is pretty congested. And bicycle or maybe people should be encouraged bikes within 200ft of the tent. I would pedestrian orientated things here. maybe separating to get off their rather see more Wel ton: I will argue the con side to Roger's pro and that is that presently whether you are staying at the Meadows or not it is a pretty marvelous experience to go down the Meadows Rd and through the marble court and through the Anderson landform sculpture and come in between the conference buildings and Paepcke and come around to the tent. It is an entirely pedestrian experience. And I think that pedestrian experience and the ambiance of really 2 modes that are only connected by foot would be destroyed if there was any kind of hover craft or monorail or moving sidewalk or whatever kind of technology that it really--part of what is special for me is that there is the Meadows--the residential that end of it--there is 28 PZM10.9.90 the academic end of it and they are not very far apart to walk and it is onlv walkable. It is preferable to walk. I know what Roger is saying about if you are going to be picking up people at the Meadows, you might as well pick up people at Paepcke. I think maybe it is up to you to make a point that at the time you would pick up people or for the purposes you pick up people at the restaurant or lodging facilities, would not necessarily coincide with or be coincident with picking up people at the academic buildings. So that a loop through for a transit loop wouldn't work. I think they are 2 separate--in this respect--2 separate things with--and they are only connected by foot and that is pretty neat. Roger: So what is the connection to town? Welton: There are separate connections to town. separate functional entities-- Roger: OK. So separate transportation systems is what you are saying. There are 2 Welton: I don't see any compelling reason to think that one loop will eliminate the need for 2 separate systems or doubling the number of trips on one looped system to pick up--I don't see any compelling reason for putting something mechanical through the middle of this campus. Mari: I would things that is it preferable. and let's keep like to second your opinion on it that important about getting people to walk And as long as it is preferable they it that way. one of the is to make will do it Welton: A straw vote. Those who feel strongly that a--if nothing more than just an easement that a transit link linking the end of the new Meadows Rd with the street going up to the parking at Paepcke. Who would like to see a transit easement be established in that location between the residential and the Meadows area. ~ we~n: Who would like to see it stay as 2 separate entities-- pedestrian only between the 2. Gi~:- ~ just have one point that I want to make since we talked about pedestrian and traffic. When we submit our applications at SPA it will be our intention to try to shoot for 29 PZM10.9.90 low side rather than high side for parking requirements on the site. I just want to prepare you. We are going to argue that so instead of 1 per bedroom we are going to try to instead of having 295 parking places which might be what the code requires, try to call it justification for less than that. I just hope you will look sympatheticly on that. Welton: I think it is consistent with the Planning Commission's historical stand that limo, internal connection with external transit--those are preferable to housing automobiles on site. The SPA process is going to be used to try and come up with a creative solution so that it is not a dumping ground for rental cars. Jasmine: It seems to me that the bulk of your traffic that you have a really good case of mitigating or having less parking in this area that you have a really good case of mitigating for having less parking in this area if you have some kind of alternative transportation link for taking care of this development. Not between these 2 but from here out. Roger: I look at the whole and the whole has some major transportation needs which there could be some benefits by co- ordinating those needs--at times at least by 1 system. Now whether it comes in to the drop-off point and circles around the circle of serenity and then goes in or what, I would think it would be a nice time to identify at the very least a potential transit easement in the vicinity of 7th st and Meadows Rd. Welton: At conceptual SPA I think that we should at least keep in mind not monorail necessarily or magnetic levitation trains or anything like that but that the ROW granted for access to the Meadows is not only suitable for buses, electric or diesel but for alternative modes and that transportation is not precluded by the width of the easements to only private cars and buses. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:05pm. 30