Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19901016 Ax'U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Graeme Means, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton and Mari Peyton arrived shortly after roll call and Bruce Kerr was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Tom Baker: The County P&Z approved the resolution that you approved last week. We have been asked to arrange a meeting between the 2 Commissions for Thursday from noon to two. It was decided so many of the Aspen P&Z could not make it the meeting would not be held at that time. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 11. 1989 With the correction of the spelling of Gaelen Graeme moved to adopt the minutes of November 11, 1989. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. ELLER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. Richard Rudolph: The only problem parking spaces? I have been a resident here for over 20 years. I have--did I hear you say there will be 4 Kim: No. Each single family residence with the dwelling unit in the basement has 4 parking spaces. will be a total of 8 parking spaces per 2 houses. actually providing 1 extra space per unit. accessory So there They are ~. Rudolph: What has happened in that are is with the Kitzbuhl Lodge. It is employee housing now and there are usually 4 to 5 PZMI0.16.90 people living in each unit with 3 or 4 cars so that in this past summer there must have been 25 to 30 cars parked around that area from the Kitzbuhl Lodge. Then you walked around the building for Ski Co of 11 units with 4 parking spaces and you gave the rest of the space from Buttermilk if I understand correctly. Therefore you are going to have another 20 parking spaces there. This summer there were no empty parking spaces along the streets. Now you are going to come in with 4 units per lodge for housing. I think it is wonderful. But you are going to put 2 more employee units that need 3 or 4 parking spaces and again no room for it. Now if any of you have been to Carmelle in California you would know they have destroyed the neighborhoods just with parking and we are having that same situation on the west end where we are now on Hopkins because what has been built recently. My only objection is to put 3 or 4 more parking spaces if you are going to add 2 additional units. The neighborhood is deteriorating, folks. If you go around there this coming winter when Kitzbuhl Lodge is filled you will find all the trash--the lack of parking spaces is becoming a major problem. Then you have the arena there that consistently adds more to the neighborhood. All I am requesting is additional parking spaces even if they have to put it underground. Welton asked for other public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Kim: As a conditional use the Commission needs to consider the situation that exists. Even if the units carried a parking requirement per bedroom that as per the other residential requirement it would carry it's own requirement of 1 space. That would bring the total lot requirement up to 4 which is what they are providing now. Several of the neighbors have expressed themselves. We may to look at the neighborhood in general as far as parking. 530sqft that are being proposed could hardly be occupied by than a single person or a couple. need The more Welton: This application clearly exceeds it's requirements for on-site off-street parking. If the trend in all the residential neighborhoods in Aspen continues then we are looking at the construction of 2 new second homes and that the occupancy of these new second homes will probably be occupied a total of 1 month out of the year if that. 2 PZMI0.16.90 So for the other 11 probability will be that be completely available unit. months out of the year the general the 4 parking spaces for each house will for whoever is renting this caretaker Because there is a problem in that neighborhood that problem needs to be addressed with the city Engineering Dept with the Skiing Co with the Skiing Co who seemed to be more than willing to be responsive to any parking problems if their development was historically creating and would create and seemed to be very willing to be responsive to neighbor's concerns. And let those people solve their own problems rather than lumping additional requirements on an applicant who is already exceeded his parking requirements by code in this application. The parking problem was created by the Kitzbuhl and by the Skiing Co and not by this applicant. This applicant is exceeding his requirement. He cannot be forced into more than he is required to do even though he is doing that already. If you have a problem with the Skiing Co--they stated as part of their application that if their plans to store their employee's cars at Buttermilk didn't work then we would look at the plan again. If it doesn't, go to the Planning Office and we will set up a meeting just to address the parking problems on West Hopkins street. I promise you that. But it is not fair when somebody is already exceeding the parking requirement to make them build beyond that. Sara: I think some day what may happen in Aspen is no parking except for stickered cars or special Bermuda license plates. And that may happen and we are understanding especially with these accessory units, those accessory dwellings that are going to happen now allover the City. Rudolph: Your Board approved those 11 units with no parking spaces and it doesn't work. Welton: If I remember right we approved that with a review mechanism to kick in after a certain period of time that if the neighbors were being overwhelmed by cars from the Skiing Co employee housing that we would look at it going and come up with a solution such as allowing only Ski Co employees that didn't have cars to live in that to completely eliminate the problem. Or some such other solution. Your concern is neighborhood is appropriate when required to do as certainly valid. And the concern of the certainly valid. But not necessarily 100% somebody has already exceeded what they are far as on-site parking. 3 PZM10.16.90 MOTION Richard: I move to approve the Eller accessory dwelling units with the conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo dated September 21, 1990. (attached in memo) Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. closed the public hearing. Wel ton then ADOPTION OF ASPEN MEADOWS MASTER PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Amy: What you have in your packed is the resolution the Meadows Masterplan as an Amendment to the Comprehensive plan. which adopts Aspen Area ACCESS In that resolution I tried to reflect the Commission's concerns as to the access into the property as well as the trails and the mitigation measures as regards the pedestrian use and bikeway use. The actual text of the plan has also been revised to reflect the changes that were made at your last meeting. Welton: I think it is a very accurate representation of the-- Amy: Pointing out on the graphic--this is how the access looks where 8th st would tie into the new 7th st access at this location and 7th st would be relocated on the opposite side of the Cottonwood trees. On the map it is noted that there are options depending on the use of 8th st and an alternative alignment along the south property boundary is also optional so that this could have the option of being moved when you get into the final application. Roger: And is it stated so that it is even optional that it is there or not. Amy: Yes. It is my understand that once we got into the final application that 7th st may not be necessary and it would be optional depending on how the applicant came up with their final design guidelines. The language in the resolution reflects that. Richard: Somebody raised the question tome as part of the plan vacation of North st between 7th and 8th? Amy: That has been raised throughout this process. In talking with the Engineering Dept and the rest of the City staff it is not common practice for the city to vacate easements. Although 4 PZM10.16.90 there may be some kind of policy statement that the Council might make that there is no intention of using that North st access. Graeme: Is North st available for either auto use or bike/pedestrian use? Amy: Not at this point. It has been landscaped for private use. The City does own it but if you were just walking down there now you wouldn't realize that that was public ROW. Graeme: either a Correct? Nevertheless, it is. And that could be in the plan bike or pedestrian path and/or an automobile route. Amy: We wouldn't even need to get an easement for it. We already have it. Welton: I was happy with the wording on the access when I first read it. But it seems to be more vague than what I thought I was reading and I think it should be pretty clear that it is not "if" 7th st is that that access will be available and unrestricted on both 8th st and 7th st. So that neither one of the streets is carrying the full burden of any additional new traffic generated. And that it is created even after mitigation plans to mitigate it are in place. Amy: That is the point I think that I need clarification from the Commission on. Sara: When the new highway comes into town there is going to be signage obviously. will it be both on 8th and 7th? Welton: It is hardly likely that people will get off on 7th st and then go up to 8th st. But for people that are coming from Cemetery Lane or other portions of the west end that might be the route that is going to be most appropriate for them. Roger: I would rather time isn't a definite. as an option. keep the language such that 7th st at this I think we should keep both of them open Sara: Maybe we are moving to what you thought might happen. That we are going to adopt it without the access decided. Welton: That is what Roger is pushing for and I would like to adopt it with both accesses as part of the plan. Graeme: I would be in agreement with Roger in that for whatever reason this is a first time--the maps that we have had in our packet have been little pieces of this whole thing and there has 5 PZM10.16.90 been nothing on this kind of scale. And I think that there is some thinking to be done. I think there has been some political thinking done but the planning part of it should be done intelligently first. And I don't think that has been done. And so I agree with Roger. I think if we do what you are talking about we are limiting ourselves and perhaps the best option is not going to be possible under that wording. I don't think all of the information has been presented too well and clearly yet. Welton: Sort of left the access back where it was a month ago in my opinion. Roger: I thought when we voted in favor of 8th st the majority voted in favor of 8th st as I recall it. And then when we voted for leaving both options open I think the majority voted for that. Amy: There was some confusion there. At this point we need more clarification from the Commission as to your intent to leave both options open or whether your intent to have both options clearly delineated on the plan so that there would be more of a split in terms of traffic going in and out of the Meadows. Or was it your intent to have those options insuring that if 7th st did come in that there would be aT. In going back and listening to the minutes I interpreted it as if 7th st is used 8th st would connect in. Roger: That is true. Amy: I am not sure what your intentions were if 7th st wasn't to be used. If you wanted to gop back to just 8th st. That is what I need clarification on. Mari: I think that we did make an inch of progress in that we eliminated the cul-de-sac on 8th. And I think what we did was we narrowed it down to either 7th coming into 8th or no 7th. I think we had a consensus that we want to leave the final decision for the final SPA application. Richard: When we got to this point at the last meeting my contention was to make the compromise by moving 8th st out into the Meadow for the benefit of the people living along it. It was not to create the 7th st as an entrance. That is where I stand on it. Roger: Also I think we agreed that it seemed at this time proper to show the Meadows Rd re-alignment where it paralleled the existing Meadows Rd. The re-alignment to the east of the existing trees. We did take that portion out as a separate vote and I think we all agreed to the moving of that to the east of 6 PZM10.16.90 the trees--that portion of Meadows Rd. And then the question was from the most southerly point of that where it parallels existing road to the access to the street system that is where we agreed that it shouldn't be a cul-de-sac if 7th st is the access it should go to intersection into 7th st but I think our general preference at this time was that 8th. st should be the access. But we did not want to eliminate 7th st as an option. Welton: Is that the general consensus of the Commission? It was decided that that was the majority opinion. TRAILS Amy: The trails plan has been revised to show the trail coming from the mUS1C tent parking on Gillespie to and getting an easement to come along below the Physics circle of serenity next to the street and somehow paralleling this access as it goes in and if not it could go somewhere in here. The old Meadows Rd would be turned into a trail which the city will be responsible for upgrading and it would connect in here so that pedestrians wouldn't have to walk all the way down to Smuggler to get back up to that trail. The other change was to take this trail through along which would fall down where the pool is now on the other side of the new townhomes and angle down to the conservation land. Mari: Graeme brought up the possibility of using the North st easement as part of the I am just wondering if there should be something on the masterplan that----- Richard: North st sticking This alignment looks preferable to me to run up the and joining for a block the existing streets other than more to the trail as such. Roger: One thing when we talk about trails we should consider that with the new highway coming in one major trail access to the Meadows property is going to be from the Marolt property. It is shown on 2 of 3 of those new maps. And we really at this time as well should consider what type of pedestrian accommodations are we going to do on 7th st or where do we start funnelling that kind of pedestrian traffic. ~ Obviously with the new highway 7th st makes sense with the traffic light to cross Main Street. But then what do we do with it after that? On 7th st between Hallam and Smuggler there is curb and gutter at the Forest Service side. However on the east side of the street I think there is only curb and gutter between 7 PZM10.16.90 Hallam and Francis. Then we lose the curb and gutter on the east side between Francis and smuggler. Then I don't think it is on either side between Smuggler and North. So we are going to have to consider major street improvements there if 7th st is an access. I know there are trees and everything else to deal with which is not going to make it simple. We are going to have to have to address this within the SPA. Amy: The pedestrian Bikeway plan will be coming before you next week and that may be the appropriate place to look at that. Graeme: Is it pretty much a given that there will be a light at Main and 7th? There was no audible answer. Welton then opened the public hearing. George Stranahan: I am representing the Aspen Physics and I want to speak to the question of access. We have been the most concerned about the 7th st access all along because it comes closest to us and at least a year and a half ago we agreed to the 7th st access and have maintained that agreement through all the City Council hearings and everything. Our agreement came as a result of trade-offs of everybody concerned which as actually enhanced our circle of serenity. So we would like the 7th st access. We gain from it and we were glad to be engaged in the discussion and for a year and a half we were relying on that as a way for us to proceed in the process. So we are concerned to find that it is not resolved and I really appeal to you tonight to nail it down. I think you owe it to really sit tight on what has worked to get us this far. Robert Hart, representing Music Festival School. Just to underscore George's comments I left last week's P&Z meeting a little bit as confused as I think it sounds like everybody was. But I did leave with the understanding that tonight we would resolve the 7th st access. And I don't think the Consortium can move ahead with a clear cut conceptual SPA let along a final SPA until we know the direction the P&Z feels we need to take on this question of access. We need to have a decision. Jim Nelson, representing Aspen Institute: I concur with what George and Robert have said. We came with the expectation that there would be a clear decision this evening with respect to access which will enable us to get on with our planning that we have ahead of us. So I urge that we get a clear view on this. 8 PZM10.16.90 Herb Klein, representing Leonard About the rehearsal facility, we would like you to keep the intent in the language that is in the masterplan. There was some comment from Graeme about possibly broadening that and expanding it. And the language that is in the masterplan is very good and it reflects a lot of public discussion about internalizing and minimizing the impacts on the rehearsal facility--that it should be just that and not a performing arts facility with more intrusion on the neighborhood. John Sarpa of Savannah Partnership: We own most of the land that you are talking about in terms of the impact of this access you just discussed. We are extremely concerned with what we are hearing here tonight. We spent an awful lot of time through the public process and I think you were helpful last week in the further refinement. This has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny. I know not that much here with this body but you came up with a helpful idea, I think. But more importantly it is extremely for you to realize we won't go forward with an SPA application on that if we don' t--we met again today to ask ourself that question. We know the answer is no. The whole point of this process is to try to reach at least parameters that we as a landowner and the Institute--it is only the 2 of us who have to come back in here and go through an SPA process. We have spent all of this time with the people in this room. There were many compromises on all the sides. We came up with the representatives at that time the 5 City Council members with a certain approach, houses located in a certain place, certain individual landowners willing to give up their land. A lot of things that are tied into this road. You pull the road off the table like you are doing now and you are pulling the political hand grenade once again on the Meadows. And that is crazy. It is just crazy after all the turmoil this has been through. So from our standpoint if that is the approach that you are taking I am not sure what follow up there is. I know there is not SPA applications is going to come back in those parameters. So if nothing else maybe we can table it and take another week, whatever you think is appropriate time because this is not the right culmination of everybody's work. Parry Harvey: In regard to what John is saying for this commission to endanger these institutions and their plan over 7th st as the access is as A access what you have come up with is a good idea to keep 8th tied to divide that traffic is somewhat ridiculous. 9 PZM10.16.90 If you look at this there are going to be 4 homesites on that southern end of the race track. If 7th st isn't the access they are going to be accessed by driveways off of 8th and off of 7th. If you have a driveway accessing more than 1 home, it has got to be wide enough for traffic going in both directions. Therefore there is going to be a ribbon of pavement there at a minimum of 20 feet in width. If it comes from 7th and it goes to 8th it is a road. So I don't understand since we have to accommodate those homes anyway what is being saved and I certainly understand as John said what is being threatened. Don Erdman. I don't have any vested interest for either 7th or 8th st. I happen to live off of 8th st. But I am building a house where I won't be near either. I just want to point out it is quite obvious to most of the people sitting here tonight is if you are questioning 15 years of planning and studies and you are a body not consisting primarily of professionals in the field. And I find it very curious that after 15 years of very consistent results of traffic studies by all of the various applicants for future development of the Meadows there is only 1 thread that has been constant. 7th st is the only access. I, as an individual, without any ax to grind find it extremely perplexing that 7th st would now fall into question. Last week it was pointed out that almost twice as many residences be they single family or mUlti-family will be impacted by any access on the Meadows Rd, 8th st extension. It is quite obvious what the situation is here and I can't figure out why we are all sitting here listening to these questions which have been asked over and over for 15 years. Chick Collins: I have here this evening another 47 signatures of residents in the west end which I submit for the record. (Attached in record) This brings it to a total of 109 parties that have signed. The petition essentially is opposing the construction of 7th st on into the track. Representing those 109 signatories I would like to ask for approximately 10 minutes to present a MUCH groaning from rest of people in the room at this point. Welton: Chic, you had 20 minutes at the last public hearing and I was soundly criticized and berated for allowing you to run away wi th the meeting. There is another dozen people here who have requested time. I will give you 2 minutes like everybody else. Please respect that. 10 PZM10.16.90 Collins: Using map--This is not a masterplan. This is a site plan. A masterplan involves much more than what is on the site. It involves all the other elements that affect what goes on on the site. One of the most important of those elements is access. And that is what we are speaking of tonight. What we have done here is to layout the west end with Main street, the new Main st coming in. This is the existing route out over the Castle Creek Bridge. I think if you look at the main artillery road it is very apparent that people stay on the main road as long as they can before they head to their destination. They don't zigzag around. So with that in mind and with bus service coming on the Cemetery Rd it is obvious it is much shorter to come back up the Meadow Rd. Meadow Rd is adequate. It has got 24ft wide. It has got 2 driving lanes 12ft each, has a capacity of 600 vehicles per hour when the maximum on the highway we have seen up to now is about 550 vehicles per day. When the new highway comes in 92% of the traffic will shift here and there will be 8% on this route and they will be able to come in very easily off of Cemetery Lane. The impact on 7th, not only on the rink, by bringing it in on the rink is to open up North st, Smuggler and Francis to east/west traffic. I noted on here all of the families with children and that is the 2 points--the impact on this area by cutting into an open space. We are talking about disincentives on cars, why would we be building more roads. If there is a problem with the existing road it seems that the applicant could take the steps to mitigate. Lastly the 4 homes could still go in here very nicely as I have tried to show on this little sketch. Charlie Marqusee's studio, 2 homes with a driveway on the City ROW, 2 homes over on the inside coming off of North st extension which belongs to the City. That is just an alternative--just an idea. Welton: We have now given you twice as much time as anybody else. Jim Adams: I just wanted to remind you of a couple of things about the access. In simple terms the development that is now in this plan is going to end up being a commercially oriented lodging complex. The proposal would allow 100% more units than are there at the present moment. That perhaps we can figure out very quickly will add close to 100% more traffic on the roadway. For 15 year and I will say it again, every professional planner that has been involved in this planning has 7th st as the access. It is the straight shot from 7th and Main and is probably a lot less folks than on the other route. 11 PZM10.16.90 Jan Collins: Right now I want to incorporate--we are trying to do all of the disincentives and this is one of them. We have all pitched in and made a dormitory situation down here on the open space--the Marolt property. We were told at the time that they were going to use bikes and they would be crossing the bridge and coming into town on bikes. They began that plan last year asking the community to come forward and give bikes and we all donated bikes. This is the plan that is coming forward in a week. Richard, you are working on that right now. They are talking about--these are the established routes for primary bike routes into the community. First you cross at the light. You go to Hallam. You have a chace here as a student from the dormitories to go down Hallam or you would head for the tent. And this is the only area here that has not been designated totally. It is 7th. The logical one. This has always been designated as a secondary and it is already coming forward on the plan as a secondary bike road. It is the logical bike route that gets you to the tent. To ride it is 6 minutes. To walk it to the dormitory is 15 to 20 minutes. I would also like to refute over here--we had statements that there is double the numbers of single families. We did an analysis on the single family duplex multi-family commercial over here. The only difference of the 2 streets--9 single families are affected on 7th st, 5 single families are affected on 8th st. We don't talk the Meadows Lane people are buffered. They are back 100ft or better. Sheryl Alway: I have one of the residences on 7th st and I just don't think that it is fair to direct all of the traffic down 7th st. I think it should be at least be shared between 8th and 7th. Katherine Albert: I live on Smuggler close to 7th and we have had our house for almost 10 years. And I have watched increasingly with the Meadow traffic that they keep coming. I have complained to John Goodwin. I have had policemen out there at that intersection at 7th and Smuggler and it is very dangerous. I won't even let my kids walk to school. I drive them. And I am very concerned about traffic on Smuggler and the traffic on 7th and the disregard for the stop signs by lots of people who just cruise on through there. And in the morning North is like a freeway with people barreling down there. So my big concern is the traffic. I think that splitting it up is certainly a better consideration. Don Swales: I live at 4th and Francis. I don't have any vested interest in either approach. But I wish I had time to go out and 12 PZM10.16.90 get 102 signatures which I could get very easily. I just don't have the time to take on this presentation and pick it apart piece by piece. Hopefully under the SPA that will be possible. There are a lot of people in the west end who do not agree with Jan and Chick's approach on this. We think 7th st is by far the best approach on every account. We get a beautiful trail/bike lane on 8th Ave. We don't have twin roads. We gain the trail. So we get a beautiful trail and all I have to say is that speaking for a lot of people on the west side, 7th st poses the solution for the traffic problem. It does not make it worse. Richie Cohen: I live in the Aspen Villas which is on 7th st. I have got an impact whichever way you choose to go. I would like to endorse what Don Erdman said and what Don Swales said and just remind you that I think you are really exceeding your authority. You may have the right to do this but I think you are exceeding your public charge to overturn a process that has gone on this thoroughly and this long and to initiate the kind of destruction that you will. I think your function here at this time is to refine this plan and to make it work a little better within the context that City Council has agreed to. I think what you are doing is wrong. I urge you to support what has been proposed initially. Anne Evertson: I support the 8th st access to the Meadows and I concur with Jan with regard to a bike path continuing on 7th. I live at 5th and Smuggler and over the last 15 years since I have lived there there has been an increasing amount of traffic in that area and I agree with this lady next to me that it isn't really safe any more for our children to be playing because of the increased traffic. And I foresee if the 7th st access is approved then there will be additional traffic filtering down into that area. I also have a problem with paving any more of our green space-- mainly I have a problem with moving and creating a new road east of the Cottonwoods and creating a new road across any portion of the southern end of it. I really think paving a little more of our paradise is wrong. Maryanne Shoemaker: My husband is John Shoemaker. I am speaking for both of us. I would like you all to remember the overall plan for traffic coming into Aspen. And I think that we voted last year on a new bridge coming into town so that we would have a straight shot into Main st which would make 7th st the logical choice for whatever traffic would go into this end of town. It doesn't seem very logical to weave it through the west to get back over to the Meadows property. And I think that we should 13 PZM10.16.90 remember this. Personally I wish I could go back to the Aspen that I came to 20 years ago when there was 1 traffic light in town. But that is not going to happen. And I think it is time for us to realize that it is not going to happen and to make the most of what we have right now. And I wish that you all would adopt the 7th st entrance tonight and get on with it. It has been going on for too, too long. Katherine Thalberg: I also live in the west end. I think it is too bad about this because it has put neighbors against neighbors and any time I think you close off 1 street it increases everybody else's traffic. We all know that. Everybody is here because of their own street and it is too bad that that is an issue but all of our traffic has increased over the years. But there are also other residents that I just wanted to mention in my area that that whole traffic area is a wildlife sanctuary. An informal one I know but it is in actuality a wildlife sanctuary. And a tremendous amount of wild animals live in that area and I just think it would be criminal to lay down another of asphalt in that beautiful green space. Jim Markalunas: I have been here for a long time. I too would like to see us go back to the way it used to be. Maybe back to the 1930s when there wasn't anything out there. But that can't be. It looks like all along the sentiment is to ram 7th st right into the Meadows. If that is the way it is going to be the way it is at least let's be responsible to the mitigation of the traffic problems that are going to result from it. I would like to charge the P&Z to do something to take up the challenge of resolving the automobile problems particularly during the Music Festival time when it overwhelms the entire west end. Let's see what we can do to work towards the elimination of the automobile in Aspen as much as possible. We see near collisions on a daily basis on the corner of North and 6th st as the cars come zipping in and out of those intersections trying to make their way to the Music tent and the Montessori school and the regular school. Heather Tharp: 6th st between the traffic. between people I have lived in Aspen for a long time. I live on 6th and 7th. And I can second Jim's concern about I have an average of 6 accidents that happen zipping into 7th running to the Music tent. Fritz Benedict: Speaking for the MAA. In regard to what Jan and Anne are talking about. The conflict for walkers and bikers if this 7th route is used for cars--I have been exploring a better way for the students to get from the complex out here in Marolt to the tent. When this road is put in there is a bike route right up to that then there will be a pedestrian way on the bridge--there will be an underpass there. 14 PZM10.16.90 Then from there on there is no road crossing here that this shows. This is the Villas and there already is a bike path here between the Villas. The underpass here then you get a new bike path then you get on that bike path that is already there and you cross this road that won't be so busy and I talked to the Forest Service about the possibility of going along the ditch back here which is a beautiful way--the big Cottonwood trees. It would be away from the traffic and the only stretch where you would be in conflict with the road would be that block to get to the Meadows complex. The Forest Service said that would be a good idea. Carol Craig: I think it is time for a compromise. I agree with the idea that the race track area is better left to the animals since they are the main inhabitants of it. But obviously people want to put pavement out there and if they do I think the best way that I can see is to make it a double road one lane the way Meadows Rd is now and then the other lane on the other side of the Cottonwoods there. And it seems to me that that is the best solution because if you are making a one way road you don't need to make it as wide as you would a 2 way road. And that way you could make access for those 4 houses from the new part of the road. Or as that diagram shows--2 on the one side from that and then the 2 others from North st where the ROW is and the road isn't. Ramona Markalunas presented a letter from her daughter expressing her opposition to the 7th st access. (attached in record) Charles Marqusee: Roger's plan last week where you took Roger's 7th and then you have as it is shown on this plan has the advantage. You are going to have a big complex out there and it would seem to me exiting there, it might be from a safety point, a good idea to have 2 exits out of there. One exit being 7th st the other one being--in other words go along with a plan for which there were 6 straw votes last week as a compromise plan. Sarpa: I would like to take one last shot. I would leave this room--the last public battle that is seemingly in the making here and everybody is going to go off and form their own sides and get the petitions together and take their adds out. Referring to Amy's memo if we could just understand where you all sit. It was our hope that what you had agreed to last week with your improvement of where the city council left off after the many meeting we had with them on the same issue and they took a 4 to 1 vote was that the first 2 sentences under access would be the same as Amy's memo. 15 PZM10.16.90 The question we have is if 7th st is to be used as the access we thought it had been agreed that 7th st would be used as access with this 8th st T and that the final sentence to be dropped. If that is not the case and we come out of here and that is still there we are (we are not going to do an SPA application) (I am not sure this is what he said right here because someone was coughing) we are going to go out and do our best with the best public support we can for all the process we have already been through and we will fight with everybody that wants to fight and see who wins. I would hope though that as a planning body you could avoid yet another process like that. Welton asked if there was any further public input. non and he closed the public portion of the meeting. There was Welton: thought what to primary The compromise that was arrived at last week which I was more than just agreement of street design but also call those 2 streets. Names. This is access and this is and this is secondary access. Is that design do you think is that going to be acceptable to all the different parties who have reached compromise on their various elements of this masterplan and later SPA/ Sarpa: Setting aside what you call this, this concept of T-ing this road as opposed to cul-de-sac is acceptable. That is what we hope to go forward with and get on with the many months of process this thing has to get to instead of now stopping here, getting back to ---- Welton: I am at a loss, Amy, I guess if we are in agreement on a design for a road why would that leave up in the air for later down in the process and for repeat of this whole experience? Why can we not agree on that design as part of the masterplan and not label it access 1, access 2 but that this is the design that is part of the masterplan. Roger: First of all the 7th st access design going to the north side of the new property may not be the final design as far as I am concerned. If 7th st is the access and I have to say if 7th st is the access--7th st may be the access. That may be the logical thing to do. But I am not willing to masterplan as 7th st the access, put in cement when there may be a better way of doing things. And that can be flushed out during the SPA process. I want to leave 7th st access open as an excellent possibility. 16 PZM10.16.90 I do get a little irked when people say because 15 years ago there was a 250 unit hotel in the middle of the rink or whatever it is that that should have a factor on this plan. That is not planning. And I also get a little irked when Parry, in the newspaper says 7th st was already approved. The _ it was approved! It went forward from this body from a different plan than you are presenting right now. It was a different plan. I think it is irresponsible not to do the best planning process concerning this. That may end up with a 7th st access. I haven't closed out the 7th st access. My personal preference right now barring seeing anything else is I prefer 8th st access. But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced that 7th st is better. Or that there is a better way of running 7th st. And that is basically the language that I think this couches. My preference at this point is 8th st. But I don't have all the information. Welton: What additional information do you want? Roger: OK. Who the heck is going to improve North 7th st. Who is gong to take out the trees between Francis and Smuggler to improve that street--or is it Smuggler and North? To improve that street sufficient to carry the load? It is a question. I don't see that answer here. We are willy nilly saying 7th st access. That may be fine for your plan but it may be hell for the city. In order to improve 7th st to handle that load, I look down the line of the Forest Service curb and I see trees in the way. Is this community amenable to pulling out all those trees to satisfy a 7th st access to the Meadows? I don't know. Maybe there is something different you guys can come up with in that whole thing. That is my problem at this point. That is why I am not willing to say I want to see 7th st put in there cast in cement. I want that option open definitely. Sarpa: Just a certification: We didn't believe that tonight or I guess what you had already considered that the road determination made either the north or south of the homes. We certainly saw that as a future part of our discussions. I guess the point that we are trying to make here is when you say maybe it will be 7th, maybe it won't, it is like to saying to us maybe we will do 5 houses, maybe you will do 3. Or maybe you will do the rehearsal tent and maybe you won't. Maybe you will give the Institute 100 rooms, maybe you will give them 50. It is of the same magnitude. It leaves the same cloud. It leaves the same 17 PZM10.16.90 question mark over the whole process that we thought we had accomplished or gotten beyond. Richard: I read this as written that I don't see that the memo denies 7th st access or gives us the right to deny it at a further point. It is just a matter of detailed planning. So I fail to understand your objections to this. And if we say no 7th st access at all and you say we have got to have it then we have got an argument. But I don't see that the argument exists with the language as it is. I would be in favor of the 8th st access but however the majority of the Board decides tonight, I will live with it. And I don't think that denies you of any of your options--the language as stated. And it is certainly not my intention to do so. Roger: I agree with that. Jasmine: I agree with that also. Mari: I do too. You can have 4 houses either way. thing it really affects is 4 houses and you can have 4 matter which access is allowed. So how does it affect plan? The only houses no the whole Jasmine: I agree with Richard. I guess I am a little concerned or confused about the Consortium's distress over this point because it seems to me that since it does not preclude any of the options that we have discussed that it is only leaving the door open for further refinements to occur at the SPA level. And I don't think there is any intention here and if you would like language in there to make this more specific that there is any intention to deny use of 7th st as some form of access if that helps any. But I think that nobody on this commission is taking this as some kind of a limitation. I have really felt for a long time that certain details are best left to the SPA process rather than the adoption of the masterplan. And I think that is the way a lot of the other people on the Commission feel. To get into too much detail in the adoption of the masterplan over the access might preclude us from doing the kind of refinement that came up even as late as last week with some of the things that were brought up by members of the public and Roger. My interpretation of this language is that that would allow us to do that and if there is a way that we can address your concerns with a couple of additions to this language I think that would be fine. But I don't see why we have to get that specific at this point on the access question. 18 PZM10.16.90 Sarpa: community there was you all. this. This is a fragile house of cards that this whole has put together. We all know that. And we know that a lot of refinement that was needed basically through There is a lot of work that still needs to be done on On this point though, the 7th st was a key component with where the houses would go because land was needed from Charlie Marqusee for instance in order to make it work. So Charlie Marqusee and a bunch of other people got from that area. So there is a practical impact on land available either for a road or for a house. Because we wanted to keep the houses and the roads off the track. That was the goal. So then there was a long discussion as to how that was going to happen. Charlie steps to the block and gave us every bit as much land as we could available. When you pull that piece out, you pullout the whole piece of serenity for Physics because the other way that we were able to please Physics by keeping out of the circle of serenity was Charlie's donation of land. It was our agreement to put the houses where they were and it was all locked into 7th st. So it is all interlocked. And you pull 7th st back out, all of that falls away. We don't have Charlie. We are not happy with the houses. He doesn't like where the circle of serenity is and that guy over there at the Institute is of the same problem. So unfortunately it is not a thing we can pullout without a ripple effect. It has tremendous ripple effects. That is why we are reacting. We don't want to go back through this controversy again. The reality is when you remove that one piece, that is it's impact. Jasmine: But we are not trying to remove that one piece. That is why I don't understand what the-- Welton: If a masterplan is adopted tonight I am understanding from the rest of the Commission that the masterplan will be adopted with a street design as shown on here with the question mark still being "Is the road going to be on the north side of those 4 lots or the south side of those 4 lots". General agreement on that point. Welton: How will that pull a card out from your house of cards and then make it not work? 19 PZM10.16.90 Sarpa: I don't want to speak on behalf of Charlie. But I think I know what Charlie and the rest of the residents that live on 8th st come from. If you remove that piece of land and he has-- you are quite right, if you are willing to eat more of the track by moving everything back off what is otherwise his land, we could do that. If we want to eat into the land another 50, 60, 70ft on the track side, that is possible. There is a critical component down in there which I don't know whether it is on the table or not. I would think it wouldn't be. I don't know. Previous discussions though--that was made clear to us. That was all part of the whole discussion. Where the road went. What the accesses were. Who was going to pay for it and all the things that you would expect to have worked out. Welton: Last week it was agreed that there would be access from 7th st that would either go south or north of those 4 lots that would connect in with a T to 8th st that a new Meadows Rd to the east of the line of Cottonwood trees would be built. The old road would become a trail. I didn't understand your answer. facilitate-- Why is that not going to Sarpa: You are leaving a question open as to whether or not there will be a 7th st component in there. Welton: The road design is what is accepted. Harvey: If you look at the page 2 of the resolution, it says in here "If 7th st is used as access, 8th st shall connect at the southern most feasible location. If the final details of the access shall be determined as part of the SPA. Roger wants a traffic study. We are conducting a traffic study. That traffic study will not be finalized until the final SPA submission. You can table this. Or we can go with the 7th st access. have to have some kind of assurances as to what is going this plan. If we are going to do a traffic study we got where the access is. But we on with to know Welton: On the second page of the resolution, if the "if" was deleted so that it said "7th st is used as an access" were an "an" added, 8th st shall connect into 7th st at the southern most feasible location. And in the last sentence which is vague enough to work in any number of ways, "The final details of the access shall be determined as part of the SPA application for the property" . 20 PZM10.16.90 Sarpa: If you took the "if" out and leave the last sentence in, that is fine. Welton: of the whether We are going to work out a lot of stuff in the details access in SPA such as who pays for curb and gutter or Roger's trees live or die. Sara asked for clarification Welton: Take out "if" and say "7th st is used as an access". Amy: want used The one I brought to leave it open or as an access. up earlier that the Planing commission do you want to say that 7th st shall be Welton: That is what I said--7th st shall be used as an access. Amy: Which doesn't leave you the option leave you the option of not doing 7th st. which is what the applicants are asking. So that is the question on the table that you maybe want to take a vote on. Welton: I would like to take a vote on this because it seems to me that if the Commission is determined that 7th st is not at least labeled as an access that the whole agreement among all the parties most directly involved is not going to reach a point where they are going to pursue it any further with an SPA which is what you said. So we have to come up at least to say that there will be 7th and 8th will share the burden and they will both be access. Richard: I fail to understand how the issue of 7th and/or 8th st access affects the use of the land or the houses. I didn't realize that the location of the lots and the house on the lots was determined by the existence of a 7th st extension. And I don't see how it would preclude reaching that same point by other means. Roger: To me 7th st is very possibly an access. And we are going to get stuck in semantics here and Welton is going to get pissed at me but that is the breaks at this point. I still want to do what is I think in the best interest of the community. And that includes keeping this together. I don't see leaving the possibility that there may be a better solution than 7th st as an access as in any interfering with that. We are in effect assuring the possibility of 7th st being the access along with 8th st with a T intersection. 21 PZM10.16.90 I want you to have the option of both. And I just see the problems of designated 7th st as "The access" or even "an access" as in effect casting it in cement where it is not necessary at this point. I don't see where it is necessary for you or for the community. Sarpa: Please don't second guess our statement that we won't come forward with an SPA. Maybe we are not explaining it clear enough. You are right, Roger. Maybe there is a different alignment at 7th. Or maybe there is another way to make the road come north or south of the homes. All of those things we still need your guidance and input on. It is just on this one fundamental thing--if you pull that out-- please don't second guess--our aim is to go forward with that. Welton: Let me make a suggestion, please. I don't know if it is going to work. But in a brief exchange with Charlie this last week he said the people on 8th st are in general happy with the idea of dual access to the Institute. At least they were not going to come out and call it They were generally in favor of it. What if we change the wording to say delete "If 7th st is used as an access"--"8th st is used as an access and shall connect into 7th st at the southern most feasible location". Does that state that both of them are to be used as accesses. Roger: How about "7th and 8th st remain open as access". Welton: Well, if you want to say it that was, that is fine, too. Parry: You are trying to say the same thing. You are trying to leave the option open that 7th st may not be an access. We are trying to leave the language so that it reads that 7th st shall be an access. Welton: I would like to call for a straw poll with the wording of the second to the last sentence of that paragraph stating "7th st is used as an access. 8th st is used as an access and shall connect into 7th st at the southern most feasible location". If that wording is acceptable please raise your hand. The count was 3. Welton: Somebody else make a suggestion. Graeme: We are put in a tough spot here. I personally after a few weeks of looking at this, my preference knowing the neighborhood and whatnot and I think the 8th st access is a more preferable access. 22 PZM10.16.90 Whether and if 7th st is part of this whole deal then I think city council is the one that should tell us that that is part of the deal. But if they put it in our lap, if we are supposed to be deciding this then we have an obligation to state to them what we feel is best from a planning point of view--not a political point of view. And so I feel that I support the language as it was written in that it leaves the options open for how the access works. If City Council wants to take on sort of the political aspects of it and say 7th st, that is OK with me. But as a planning advisory body we need to look at the planning part of it. So I would support what was originally in there. Amy: Graeme, you are correct in that the Planning Commission-- the reason was the power the authority is vested in the Planning commission to adopt plans and to remove it from the political aspect. You are the final authority to adopt this masterplan. However, the law does provide for the City Council to override the masterplan at the final SPA application. And that kind of checks and balances has been built into the way that masterplans are adopted. MOTION Mari: I would move to adopt the Aspen Meadows plan as the resolution prepared by the Planning Office. Roger: I will second but also recommend a bit stronger language in a way to make the developer feel comfortable that he can plan a 7th st access. But I just don't want to say at this point the access shall be 7th st. Harvey: I ask that you formally table this to a date certain. Fritz Benedict: If we for a minute look at the international situation. Look at the national situation. And then think of this little paradise we have got here. We obviously fiddling We are nitpicking! It is obvious. I have been involved in the planning of that property for 40 years. I don't think I am going to live long enough. Welton: Fritz, I don't think I will either! Roger: I seconded the motion. I would like additional language indicating that as far as their planning is concerned I wish as far as their planning is concerned they hear 7th shall. But by the same token in this whole process as they develop it, maybe they can come up with a better solution. 23 PZM10.16.90 Sara: I feel Welton provided that language and you voted against it, Roger. Roger: I didn't hear that in the language. Sara: I did. Jasmine: I think the main concern of the developer is that there should be nothing in here that would preclude them from 7th st access. And they need to be guaranteed of that. Or is that not right? Harvey: We need to know that 7th st is an access to the property. We can't have it simply that nothing precludes us from resolving that at some undefined point down the road in an SPA process because we are just not willing to go through the expense--we went through this last year. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an application and it went nowhere! We need some basis on which to have the confidence to come forward with an application or the various entities have got to go on about their business. Jasmine: help. Do you have some form of language? Maybe that will Sarpa: The first 2 sentences remain the same. The 3rd sentence could read "If the applicant proposes that 7th st be an access then 8th st shall connect". Roger: I have no problem with that. Welton: I think that is good. Jasmine: Could you say that again? Welton: He said "If the applicant proposes that 7th st is used as an access, 8th st shall connect into 7th st at the southern most feasible location". Is that what you said? Sarpa: Right. Roger: And we could put (Meadows Rd) after 7th st at that point because actually Welton: There is a motion on the floor. Would the mover amend the motion? 24 PZM10.16.90 Mari: Well, I guess my question is does this language guarantee 7th st or not? It sounds to me that it does. Roger: No. It doesn't. But if that is the proposal that comes before us I can accept that language. Welton: Do you want to amend your motion? I did not get an answer. Welton: Do you want to amend your second? Roger: Yes. ?: Does that mean that it could be on Hallam st? And 8th st could be closed off? What is the southern most feasible location? What--that doesn't necessarily mean what you guys have been talking about. Roger: Well, that is why I wanted to put (Meadows Rd) because, to me, conceptually north of North st is Meadows Rd whether it connects to 7th or 8th. Welton: Let the record show the motion was revised, the second was revised. Amy: I just want to point out that the graphic will be part of the plan and the graphic will show a general location so I don't think there will be too much confusion on that. Graeme: Could we ask City Council to clarify whether 7th st is part of that deal or not? If they broke red the deal then in a way it is their heat. And have them give us direction on it. Mari: I feel that city Council has the right to make a political call on that if they have to. And I don't think--I believe that what you said in the first place was correct. We should just try to make the best planning call that we can make and leave the political call to Council. Graeme: It has got to be decided sooner or later and I just think that whoever is ultimately responsible is going to have to make a decision. We can make our recommendation or whatever but- Sarpa: We spent a lot of time with the Council discussing 7th st and whether or not it was essential. There were some members who felt that we would prefer another entrance but they voted 4 to 1 for that entrance because of it's overall importance to the 25 PZM10.16.90 project and to the rest of the proposal. And I would be happy to have them reconfirm that. Graeme: If that were clear to me first of all I don't think the last 2 meetings should have been filled up with all of this. The fact that they are and this process has gone on leads me to believe that what I should do is give them direction on what I feel is the best planning decision which is what I am doing. Sarpa: All I can say is it descending member of the expressed his dissent. Graeme: Anybody can come in here and share anything they want. has gotten off the wrong start when a Council came in here and clearly Roger: Some of the other side have contacted me and what they want from us is really the best planning approach to it. Even members who voted positively for 7th st at that point. Their minds are not totally close don it. If there is a better widget, they will buy it. But they are willing to accept 7th st at that point. I think we are even willing to accept 7th st at this point. While we have certainly not prevented 7th st from going forward. Welton: will be to you. Harvey: It is fairly obvious that a majority of this Commission does not support 7th st as the access. Roger, I am not going to have a full blown traffic analysis and mitigation for RFTA and MAA and van service and all of that until the final SPA. And if this is going to be debated and argued and postponed and continued and go on and on when there is no point in our making a submission that has this dangling issue out there. And whatever language you guys come up with on a compromise here--it is obvious that a majority of this commission does not want 7th st as the access and that just is telling me very clearly that it is futile to go back and go through and that is why I requested a tabling on this. The motion on the floor has John's wording which I hope acceptable to the applicant. (To Harvey) It leaves it up We are in a position if you adopt the masterplan of making an SPA submission either with a total uphill battle or a long protracted approval process or not making one at all. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. The motion I thought, Parry, as revised-- Harvey: Can you read it back to us? 26 PZM10.16.90 Amy: If the applicant proposes that 7th st is used as an access, 8th st shall connect to 7th st at the southern most feasible location. Roger: What would satisfy me further on this as well if the applicant is willing because one of my major concerns is the improvements needed for 7th st south of the Meadows Rd or north. Now who's responsibility is that going to be? How are we going to deal with those? Sara: That is not part of the SPA. Roger: Well, not technically part of the SPA-- Welton: It is also part of the trails and streets all of that. Roger: I have to-- Welton: It is not something that is decided at a masterplan level. Roger: I know. But that is one of the things that is hindering my freedom to say willy nilly go ahead with 7th st. Welton: Because one way Well, then you it is something or another. are being hindered by the wrong thing. that should not determine a masterplan Amy: It is my understanding as part of the negotiations on the purchase of the conservation land that the applicant has agreed to pay for the access into the property. The City has agreed to improve the trails. So that would not be a cost--the new access would not be a cost to the city. It would be a cost that would be bourn by the applicant. Wel ton: There Is there any comment. is a motion on the floor and there is a second. pertinent additional intelligent illuminating Harvey: If I could direct the Commission's attention to 3 items in the draft masterplan. Page 16, item 8. Trail plan the actual map shows the trail as Amy describes it. The verbiage here in the second sentence--"The picnic Point Trail will be aligned along Meadows Rd, 7th st to the north of the trustee houses with access along Castle Creek". I think that language should be changed to correspond with the map. Amy: To say "The new townhouses". 27 PZM10.16.90 Harvey: Right. And I think it should say "Going to the west at the north end of the new townhouses. Now as part of the agreement on the sale of the conservation land the trail is going to be paid for by--we pay for the access and the Meadows Rd turning that into a trail, The City is paying for the trail as it goes down through the conservation. I would like some additional language in there on that. Welton: For the purposes of this motion be specific with your amendments to the wording of the masterplan so that the motion can include specific revisions. Harvey: It should just say that the Picnic Point Trail will be aligned along Meadows Rd, 7th st to the north end of the new townhouses and shall at that point turn west and access the conservation land. Amy: I think that the map would cover it. The trustee house is clearly a typo. I would just change that to new townhouses. Harvey: I would like it to state that as part of the agreement between the City and Savannah to purchase that conservation land, the City has agreed to pay for the trail system on the conservation land. Richard: I have no understanding one way or the other on that. Amy: I didn't put that in here. purchase of conservation land appropriate to put in there. agreement between-- I didn't put anything about the because I didn't think it was A masterplan is clearly an Harvey: What if we say the contract then would say--do you want to change, Amy, on page 17, item 11--the price for that? Or do you want to leave that as it is in this? Amy: I think we can leave it as it is. Harvey: Final plan on page 18 under the mitigation--Item #1, employee housing. It states that the submission should also be accompanied by an agreement that there will be no provision for storage of employee automobiles on site. I think that we want greater flexibility because if you have employees commuting to this site and you have something that says you cannot allow them to store their cars on site then what are they going to do? Are they going to park on Smuggler or 7th or 8th and walk the last little bit to work. I think that that is 28 PZM10.16.90 a--that the whole automobile and parking and vans and traffic and that whole mitigation plan should be left open for the SPA process. And I don't' really understand what is being sought after with this language that--I mean it says "should" and maybe you are comfortable enough that the submission should also be accompanied by. Maybe that doesn't absolutely mandate it. Welton: I think you--it doesn't mandate it one way or another. Amy: I think the intent was that because it was not going to be employee housing on site perse that we didn't want employees storing their cars there. I mean they walk to work but store their cars on the site for long periods of time--like the whole winter. That was the intent of this. Harvey: There is the potential structure somewhere on this site as which would actually encourage that for an underground we go through the SPA kind of thing. parking process Sub item--well, if you feel that there is room for discussion in that as we go through the SPA then that is fine. Roger: Are changing "will" to "should" in this? Harvey: It says "should". be accompanied. It says the submission "should also Amy: The intent behind it--the plan was that --there should be no storage for employee automobiles on site. That was the intent. Graeme: What storage too. I mean would it be long term storage, daytime parking? Amy: It would mean long term storage. Graeme: If we put that in would that make it clear? Harvey: Yes. If you add long term. Item #3 under #1 talks about the second sentence says "Affordable housing or the lodge units associated with the Aspen Institute shall be exempted by formal action of the City through the adoption of a code amendment. I thought we had discussed the fact that the MAA expansion and any employee generation associated with their rehearsal facility would also be exempted through that same formal action by the City. 29 PZM10.16.90 Amy: That was an oversight. and not to the second. It Music Associates of Aspen. It was added to the first sentence should say Aspen Institute and the Affordable housing for the lodge units associated with the Aspen Institute and the Music Associates of Aspen shall be exempted by formal action of the City through the adoption of a code amendment. The intent there was that the housing for the non-profits that was associated with their facilities would be exempt from the affordable housing requirements. Wel ton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. The wording of the adoption agreement has been modified--the wording of the resolution has been modified to state if the applicant proposes 7th st to be used as an access, 8th st shall connect into 7th st at the southern most feasible location. And the text of the masterplan has been revised per Parry's technical comments and those revisions will be made by the Planning Office. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard Compton. Wel ton: The Masterplan is adopted. Time was 7:10pm. The meeting is adjourned. 30