Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19901120 c c c ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20. 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. Mari Peyton was excused. Bruce Kerr and Richard Compton were absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Amy: There is a change in the time for your joint meeting with the County Planning commission on Hwy 82 alignment. The meeting is now going to start at 4:30 instead of 5:30 on the 29th. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES OCTOBER 23. 1990 Roger made a motion to adopt the minutes. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. SCHIFF CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Welton opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in Welton asked the applicant if she had any questions, comments or problems with the conditions of approval. Terry Schiff: No. Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Jasmine: I move to recommend approval of the conditional use with the conditions 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the Planning Office memo dated November 9, 1990. (Attached in record) . Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM11. 20.90 opportunity to put in some elements to make for people today. expansion. aerobic areas and weight room. We do need this a little more modern and use oriented We have designated 1,800sqft for this Amy: We would suggest fencing around the pool. Gideon: We don't have any problem with that. As you can see what is proposed is we have 3 tennis courts that exist. What we show here is the road, the entrance into the facility. The 3rd tennis court over here is at grade level that will remain the same throughout. There will be a ramp going down, the 95 covered spaces and the tennis court over here so that this one does not have parking underneath it. These 4 have parking underneath them. There will be 2 parking places per trustee house. Graeme: I think this does work on a conceptual scale but it is so linear and I don't know how long that fence is but I think it could be broken up a lot with changing fence heights with small tennis buildings as part of the fence with berming--with something. But it is a very straight line and kind of an alien element at the moment. Welton: line. courts? . Right now the tennis Is there any change in court fencing is in a straight elevation of the various tennis Parry: There are small 4ft breaks between. Gideon: If you look at your topo, it is a very gradual rise all the way to here and the bulk of the rise takes place from here to here. There is a 6ft difference between the most southerly court edge and the most northerly court edge. Welton: I agree with Graeme. What you have now is 360ft in one straight line, one wall is too much. However it could possibly be handled with berming and trees and landscaping. Gideon: We will be happy to look at that. We will be submitting a construction schedule. The fund raising is going to have a lot to do with these renovations and remodeling. What we are looking at is a real unknown depending on how the community responds to the fund raising. Parry: The next item is' prior to submission for the final development review, the first one regarding HPC. 4 PZM11. 20.90 Joe Wells: We don't really anticipate a problem with regard to HPC review. We anticipated going through a review process. We want to say however so that there is no misunderstanding that these are not designated landmarks and there is no historic district over the property. So the review procedure is for inventoried structure is somewhat different than those for designated landmarks. It has never been clarified what that review procedure is. We think it ought to be review procedure for inventoried structures. . Welton: Well, there isn't a review procedure for inventoried structures. There is no power. There is no clout that HPC has on something that is not designated unless as a condition of an SPA for instance that power is given to them or unless there is plans to demolish it which they have additional powers to say yea or nay. One of the Planning Office's recommendations was that they be treated as if they were designated structures even though they are not and I would be inclined to want to make sure that what decisions HPC makes had some clout in regards to preserving these buildings. Amy: This came up as an issue in the Masterplan and it was agreed in the Masterplan that HPC review the new buildings on the site with the exception that at the time we did the Masterplan HPC was not concerned about having any sort of clout over the design of the Chalet Buildings and the single family homes so the Masterplan just speaks to them as being advisory only. It is important to us that ~PC review be done prior to the final development plan because otherwise it becomes fairly meaningless. Generally in this type of review before it comes to you at conceptual you would have a recommendation from HPC but because we have an accelerated review process here we are allowing that to do the HPC review at final. Parry: We met with HPC and actually HPC has had 2 meetings regarding Meadows. The first one was prior to Masterplan adoption and it was for referral for comments. At that time HPC decided that they wanted to review the buildings with the exception of the Chalets and the residential single families and their review of that would be advisory only. At an HPC meeting last week HPC's Don Erdman said "Well we should review in detail the single families and the Chalets". I protested that and said "Look let's stick to the guns and do what you guys recommended before because we are on a tight time frame and we want to get this done". 5 PZM11. 20.90 Georeanne said she agreed that the rules shouldn't be changed in mid stream and it should only be advisory and that was the end of the discussion. subsequent to that we decided with HPC to appoint a subcommittee of HPC members and staff to meet with us and that is outlined in Roxanne's memo as item #3 to review what we are planning to do to get their input and to go ahead with HPC input when we came back for final review. That is our understanding of what the review procedure would be. The difficulty we are having in item #4 is that it is talking about a conceptual and a final approval. It doesn't outline any differentiation in terms of the degree of review the way the Masterplan does. And I feel that the subcommittee working with them--we will make, between conceptual and final formal submission for a review and go before the HPC. So in addition to the subcommittee meetings we will have a formal meeting with HPC. I am trying to eliminate 2 more steps, a conceptual and a final in addition to all of the subcommittee review process before HPC and simply clarify that according to the Masterplan what HPC' s review is. _. Amy: You may want to leave it up to the HPC. We didn't want to limit HPC's ability to not have final review before it comes to the Planning Commission for the final application which is the way we treat every other applicant. But if the HPC felt comfortable with the level of review that they have prior to that point that would be OK with staff. Parry: So would this say something like "The list items in the Masterplan must undergo review by the Historic Preservation Committee prior to final SPA submission". Amy: Unless determined not to be necessary by HPC at that time. Parry. That's fine. Amy: have that My proposal is to leave it just how it says. to go through conceptual and final unless the HPC it is not necessary. That they determines Parry: That mandates a 2-step process before HPC and I am already going through a-- Welton: That mandates a 2-stage process before HPC unless HPC can determine that a 2-stage process is not necessary. Parry: Which means I have to go back to HPC and make that request? 6 PZMl1. 20.90 Amy: You have to go back to them anyway. Parry: Do I go back to them on a conceptual submission or do I go back in one submission? Amy: You have to do conceptual and final in my opinion no matter what with HPC. Parry: These aren't designated and they aren't demolition. John Sarpa: We are discussing the time it takes to get it done. We are all trying to get this done. Amy: I was trying to give you some leeway to maybe final. HPC would be after you submit your final application as long as HPC was comfortable at that time if you have a timing crunch. But I do not think that it is appropriate to short-cut the review of conceptual and final by HPC. Welton: just adds can do it Is everyone comfortable with the wording of Amy's which as to the text of #4--unless HPC determines that they in a short-cut method. Graeme: Are the 4 single family lots going to be sold and developed by the new owner? Parry: It is our intention that we were not going to design a full residential home for each of those sites and/or build it out. It is our intention that we were to develop some--we have FAR restrictions and caretaker units and we were going to put that on and here is the lot. Graeme: I think it would be important to do that in that I think for those houses to feel as an extension of the west end if the more they vary in character, the better. Parry: #5 is fine. #6 the trail easements dedicated--that is fine. #7 the utilities underground--that is fine. #8, we need to deal with. We brought this up at the Masterplanning level and basically my understanding is that what we are talking about is a detention pond in the middle of the race track. And it has been discussed that that be concrete, that it hold 5 acre feet and I think that we need to have some discussion about this. It' seems totally in conflict with the open space intentions of everybody about the use of the race track. 7 PZM11.20.90 ,..' Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept: It is a planning issue too to meet the Clean Water Act. The city will have to be complying with the Clean Water Act in the very foreseeable future which will mean that we will no longer transmit runoff from the streets directly into the Roaring Fork River. The 1973 plan was being ahead of it's time but the information is still current and if we are going to meet the Clean Water Act requirements we are going to have to have facilities for-cleaning up the street runoff before it goes into the river. And one of those facilities that was identified in 1973 was on this site. Welton: This detention pond or catch basin would handle what area? I think it is obviously more than just on-site needs. Chuck: Oh sure. The 1973 plan broke the city of Aspen up into a number of drainage areas. I believe a half dozen. And there are different facilities identified for treating water in these different areas. I think this one is for the west end in general. Welton: Would it have to be concrete? Chuck: No. There are alternatives as how you utilize a structure like this. These are generally designed for the 100 year event. The final design has not been done on this but I would imagine that you could have a design for a 50 or 25 year event would not impact this particular facility so that only a few times in a hundred years would it actually be storm runoff water in the facility. A.J., construction person: Let me make just a couple of points about the 1973 study. Things have changed a lot in Aspen since 1973. Some of the rain fall data was based on inaccurate information. Chuck's comment regarding the concrete--the soil out in that area everybody knows is sandy type of material. You are going to have to line that structure with something to keep the water from just leaching through. If it does leach through I think the volume of water you are talking about you run into the possibility of underminings, water infiltration and that sort of thing. 5 acre feet for anybody's information--an acre is 220 by 220. 5 acre feet is 5ft deep. So you are talking about a substantial size structure as well. And this structure is supposed to take care of more than just the west end. As I remember it is supposed to take care of a large portion of the entire town. It is really inappropriate for this area even though this is "The official runoff plan for the City", it is very inaccurate and it shouldn't be in the race track area. 8 PZM11. 20.90 John Sarpa: A suggestion in the whole process that we have been through with the whole community for the last 3 years is to preserve as much of that open space as we can. We have changed a lot of concepts ourselves from previous studies and designs. I would strongly suggest that the Engineering re-look this, revisit this. I mean we don't want to do anything that will hamper this community in the future whether it is 10, 50 or 100 years. But at the same time there has been an awful lot of effort to keep that track open and I think it would merit--I would ask that the city Engineering staff with us or anybody else that wants to get involved in this to look at alternatives to how to handle this. I think it is clear that it does conflict with a lot of the other goals that we have all agreed on. Welton: We have been discussing the Meadows for 15 to 20 years and I don't remember ever talking about putting a detention pond in the middle of the race track. This is a whole new item particularly something that taken to an extreme could look like the reservoir in Central Park with a race track around it. Jasmine: And people-loving joggers. Welton: And every street gutter-piped so that it empties into this. Up on the one hand it is something like the little detention ponds on the north side of the Rio Grande property that can appear to be a water feature and that in fact are there for the 25 or 50 or 100 year flood as just a depression, that is one thing. But if it is handling the entire town it is a decision that should not be made tonight because it sounds like a pretty big one. And where has it been hiding for 15 years? Chuck: I think this could be sensitively designed. I think your analogy with the water feature at the north part of the Rio Grande--that has year-around water in it. I would prefer a comparison with the storm detention pond at Clark's Market. When you walk to the post office and you have the board walk and the Cottonwoods and there is a pouple of benches in there. I don't think I have ever seen water in there. So I don't think that this feature necessarily has to take every storm that comes through town. I think it doesn't have to be designed that way. Graeme: Could it be piped down to the Conservation Land? Chuck: I don't know why not. Graeme: I just think it would change the vegetation in that area. It would just change the whole character of that field. It would be different even if it were invisible because it was bermed up around the edge. But all that sage I don't think would 9 PZMll. 20. 90 survive that. But maybe at the southern end of the Conservation area and kind of downhill from the townhomes. Welton: Why wouldn't you want that water to leech into that rocky cobbly soil and then just be filtered by the rocky cobbly soil and eventually migrate back into the river? A.J. : The volumes of water you may be talking about in a 100 year storm would be substantial. I don't think that you want all that water leeching through in that area with buildings surrounding it. Welton: Well, for the other 99 and 1/2 years in the century-- A.J.: The concept is there and that is the concept of dry wells. But there again you are taking water outside the Meadows property and you are also having hydrocarbons, street runoff, dirt, styrofoam cups--that sort of thing is going to be deposited in that area. It is going to be very unsightly and you are going to have to go out and clean it on a periodic basis if there is water running through there on a regular basis. Welton: Do you have any suggestions for changing the language on that one to make it a little less of a final decision at this stage and leave the door open for-- Parry: If you want to talk about investigation between the applicant and the Engineering Dept of methods to comply with the urban runoff, I think we can do that. I would like to see some kind of a statement from P&Z about the appropriateness as is shown on the attached site plan of the Engineering memo. Or you can say "This is a problem, Council, take care of it". Roger: Are we looking at a series of sediment ponds? Chuck: In the context of the town we are. But in the sense of a series it doesn't really show at that--that would be a conception that I might have is a series so that your 25 or 50-year storm never gets to this place. Roger: Another thing we have to look at is if a better location is in the Conservation soon-to-be-open-space zoned, we better look at language not to prohibit that sort of thing from happening in the ConservatiQn or open space zone. Amy: The applicant shall work with the Engineering Dept to investigate compliance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan? Welton: That sounds good to me. How about the rest of you? 10 PZM11.20.90 .,......- There was general consensus. Parry: #9. As it reads this is requirement to do the I-way pair into and out of the Meadows. Bob Felsberg has given us a letter discussing the access to the property and is here tonight to look at 7th vs 8th. We felt it would help to have an expert's opinion regarding the right access to this property. It seems to me the motivation to do the 1-way is we can go to less with the pavement. We should be focused on the transportation issue and the access issue and create the best long-term solution to the property rather than simply to save 6 or 8ft of black top. Bob Felsberg: Gave an impressive self background. My primary involvement with this project is to work with the transportation committee in developing the transportation plan and mitigation plan. We have had a couple of meetings so far and will continue as this project progresses. The Consortium also asked me to review, from a traffic engineering standpoint, whether the historical planning that identifies 7th st as the primary access to the Meadows property made sense not only from a lot of the planning issues that have been discussed through the years but purely from a traffic engineering standpoint. To me the focal point of any access assessment dealing with one or the other of those 2 stFeets providing access to the Meadows property really has to focus on the access from the main roadway system that feeds to the west end of town--Hwy 82. Not only as it exists today but as it is being proposed before you at this very moment to extend Main st straight to the west and emphasize the intersection of 7th and Hwy 82 with that re-design. That becomes the primary signalized intersection that then will become the primary entrance to that portion of town off of Hwy 82. But either way I think what my assessment really shows from operational standpoint was that 7th and 82 is a far better access point to the area than 8th and 82. Whether it is under existing conditions and even moreso under future conditions with the re- emphasis of 7th and Main st signalized intersection from several different standpoints. It is clearly the most direct route. We see it today in counts that the Consortium did in the summer of 1989 where the traffic lines are coming into the area on 7th to Smuggler using Smuggler to get to 8th and then 8th to get into the Institute property. It is clearly the more direct route and the more natural route for people to flow into the area. That will continue with the re-alignment of 82. 11 PZMl1. 20.90 The signing issue. If we try to use 7th st because it lends itself as a natural through-movement through the intersection of 7th and 82, 7th and Hallam, however you refer to it, into the property--the signing requirements would require that only that intersection be signed for the property. If we wanted to focus people over to 8th we would have to sign them to turn left at that intersection, turn right at the 8th intersection and head in towards the property. So it gets a little bit more complicated which introduces confusion, safety concerns. The primary thing I fOCUSQd on was safety issues at those 2 particular intersections. From my standpoint clearly and if any of you drive either of those intersections on a regular basis inbound and outbound, 7th, Hallam, 82 intersection is functionally easier and safer intersection to flow out of than the 8th intersection. The through movement inbound--that is basically unrestricted and the outbound direction you have the advantage of the 3-way stop, you have the advantage of the heavy inbound movement is separated from you by the exclusive turning lane heading into town so it is not a movement you have to worry about coming out and you have got the 3-way stop condition. You have got Hallam st and a I-way street coming into the intersection which makes it simpler. with 8th st you have got inbound, you have got to make a left at that intersection and within about 300ft make a right turn movement. Outbound though is more critical in my mind. If you have sat at that intersection you know the site distance problems there because of the large trees that are certain to be preserved. You have got parking on the north side of Hwy 82. If there are any vehicles parked there that tends to block vision in both directions. Most importantly you have to worry about traffic there in both directions to make a left turn out of there to head in towards town. You have got to worry about it coming from the west, you have got to worry about it making that left turn up at 7th and coming to the west coming from the east. So there you have got to deal with both flows of traffic as opposed to the other intersection. One of those major flows is taken out of the picture in essence. So I think from an operational standpoint those are the reasons that we indicated to the Consortium that we thought 7th was clearly the preferable from a traffic engineering standpoint. The 1-way couplet issue that has come up--to be honest--I only received this today and have not run an analysis. I think the 12 PZM11. 20.90 goals of trying to minimize the pavement in the Meadows area there are admirable and disbursing the traffic is admirable. But I think there are some very practical considerations that you really need to think through very seriously that came immediately to me in looking at the issue. How do you sign it? How do you make it operate the way it is intended to operate as a I-way system? My primary concern focuses down in this area here. I don't think it is any problem here. You can sign it inbound that can function at 7th. The outbound issue here you probably want to design this more like a Y intersection to encourage the outbound movement this way so it wasn't confused and then think it could go to 7th. But more importantly what do you do down here on 8th? Where do you stop at on I-way? I would think you have got to carry the 2-way movement from Hwy 82 at least to North st. You have got townhomes on North. You have got a lot of residential activity there that you would not want to focus to 7th, to the Meadows inbound and then back down that way. So what do you end up with? You end up with a 2-way street system till you get to thi~ little North st and all of a sudden there are signs that have to say "Do Not Enter", "Wrong Way", "One Way", "Outbound". For those people who have found their way to that point and are interested in getting to the Meadows, what do they have to do at that point? They have got to make some sort of turn-around movement and head back out. So you would have to provide some sort of facility for that turn-around movement to occur which I don't think exists today. The other thing I question about it is the issue about disbursing the impacts. I understand the logic behind that is to try and spread them to several streets and therefor not focus on one. But I guess my first reaction is--does this really do that because what I think what you are going to find--you will have all the inbound on 7th to the site. The outbound--OK--they will come down 8th and where are they going to come to? They are going to come to Smuggler, they are going to turn left, they are going to come to 7th and they will head out to Hwy 82 because that is the intersection they want to get to. And the counts show that today that those patterns exist. And I don't see any reason that that is likely to change. So I guess the question becomes you do disburse on the sections of 7th and 8th north of smuggler but do you gain any benefit on those sections south of Smuggler? I think not. Those are the concerns that I would have. Maybe they can be resol ved and maybe they can't. I think there are some very serious operational concerns that would have to be resolved before you should think about that kind of system. 13 PZM11. 20.90 Parry: How much pavement does I-way vs 2-way save on 7th? Felsberg: There are differences of opinion. You have already heard tonight 13 to 14ft. I wouldn't design even I-way road systems less than 16ft. That is to allow for emergency situations, ease of operation of larger vehicles, vans and things that require a little bit more space. You have got emergency vehicle access that you need to be concerned about particularly in conditions like here where you have got to worry about where you are going to pile snow during winter months. We have learned from experience in ski resort areas that we always have to provide about 20% extra area just for snow storage in peak winter seasons. Another document that I typically refer to in dealing with residential street areas is published by the Urban Land Institute and clearly they are not ones for encouraging laying of asphalt. And they use 16ft as their minimum recommended cross section on extremely short cul-de-sacs and more importantly on I-way loop systems. As a matter of practice from an operational standpoint and for safe functioning I would say 16ft would be a desirable minimum for a I-way loop system. So you are talking 16ft compared to 22ft. Amy: We put together some figures on that I-way street but in general I think he made a lot of valid comments from an engineering perspective. We looked at it more from a character perspective and impact from the neighborhood perspective and in general what we are trying to do was to make an intrusion on the race track comparable to what it would be if you didn't' have 7th st and you had to use driveways. And therefore with the driveway which we check that with our fire dept--they are going to the homes are sprinklered that can be a fairly narrow driveway coming in to access these homes and thereby pUlling the homes further down on the racetrack. So that was one of our goals in terms of looking at the I-way. We also assumed that this would be 2-way all the way up and that it would only be I-way coming in here--that you would come out on 8th st and this would remain a 2-way street as it is now. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: What our intention was after hearing Chuck's comments about I-way in and I-way out was to look at the 7th st extension as a I-way access to serve both the Meadows and provide individual access for residential homes here. Actually all of roads to and including 8th st would be 2-way. The 212ft travel lanes would require 24ft wide pavement width 14 PZM11. 20.90 and then additionally 3ft roadway shoulders and that is compacted graveled surface that someone could pull off on. The snow storage comes up as an additional requirement of unobstructed area that could accept the snow. It doesn't have to be treated specifically as any surface--just that it be unobstructed. The roadway width that we were considering and what Chuck recommended as a minimum width would be 14ft of roadway pavement. The other spacial issues for the roadway shoulder and snow storage wouldn't maintain so what we are talking about is a visual corridor of trees, land area of pavement and roadway shoulder would total 20ft for the I-way narrow pavement scenario whereas with the 24ft wide 2-lane traffic with the appropriate shoulders would be 30ft of treated visible roadway system. As the consultant mentioned the Y intersections here appear to be smoother access route as concerning the intersection 7th st to Meadows and 8th. Coming at it from a standpoint of the actual system 7th st as a straight shot off of the highway. Using this scenario would just require 1 wide radius turn to the intersection which if it is a Y it would then allow for another comfortable right hand merge type turn here. The applicant I s scenario which seeks to take the 7th st and wrap it around the 4 lots here would cause some more gentle S curving. Chuck: I wasn't completely comfortable with suggesting a 14ft pavement. The references that I was able to research didn't have guidelines and I did suggest getting advice from a specialist. But I am comfortable with not thinking that 22ft of pavement is appropriate in that 24ft of pavement would be minimum in that area so that we are trading 2ft on both ends and in terms of the net loss of pavement it would be the same 22 vs 14 or 24 vs 60. Kim: Using the Planning Office's recommended alignment would require that these lots be moved down right abutting the Meadows property including taking in some of the North st ROW. John Sarpa: I would like to address our thoughts about why we have the road on the other side. The concept being we have had this discussion numerous times. If you haven't walked out there I would ask you to walk out there with this in mind and look at it because I quite agree that all of our objectives have been to minimize the impact on the track and on the academic experience. You focus on this stretch and you say when somebody comes to Aspen, Colorado and they are going to go to the Meadows, they are going to drive through here and you want them to have that great experience of let's say 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, depending on how fast you are driving, of this wonderful vista. This is great. But where is that person going? They are going 15 PZM11. 20.90 to live here, stay here, be here. By far the bigger impact that this person has in terms of the Meadows and the track is while they are here--not this 30 second hit here. And what they see now, if you will, is the Meadows going all the way back up into residential dwelling units. We feel that's what we ought to keep. And we feel very strongly that to preserve the Meadows as it is today makes no sense to put a road here where you are going to be standing here enjoying the view and you are going to see a truck go down there or a shuttle bus. It is just the opposite, I think, of what we are all trying to accomplish. So it makes no sense whatsoever from taking your perspective to put a road there. It is just the opposite. You should put the road on the other side of the houses, deed restrict the back part of that back yard so that it goes back and even when you have the certain amount required under the zoning you take a significant portion of everybody's back yard and it stays just as it is now. So that in perpetuity and for everyone the people that are looking, they don't see the road, they don't see trucks. They see the back yard of somebody' s home. Now that, to us, makes a heck of a lot more sense than sticking this road here and have ruined that experience which is the main reason we stuck it over there. --' Amy: From a Planning perspective, John makes a good point. I just think the Planning Office really strongly believes that this is a better way to go. You could go either way. But we just feel you should sort of try to separate the residential neighborhood from the Meadows property and that not have that open space feel like it's those house's back yard. And I feel that it will feel that way when you are out there. You will feel like you are intruding on their back yard as opposed to separating the public from the private. And again it is a personal preference in terms of that. But I do recommend also that you go out to the site and see how you feel about it. Welton: I don't think you feel that with the golf course. Parry: We are really dealing with 2 issues here. And one is that access road into the property and the second is the location of the 7th st extension as it relates to the homes. And item #9 deals with 7th and 8th and how do you get into the property. I think it is a separate issue.. There are a couple of other points about the amount of cut and fill required for the road south or the road north and the number of trees which have to come down, road south, road north. Welton: One-way years ago. They belong in Aspen. streets are foreign to me. They didn't work 20 don't work at the post office. They just don't They belong on 6th and 7th in Denver, 13th and "'''''<.,." 16 PZM11. 20.90 14th in Denver. They don't belong here. It is kind of like removing the patient's head ,in order to cure a sore ear. I agree with John from a planning point of view, from an architecture point of view with his comment that to go between residential neighborhoods on both sides you are going on a corner and you turn and then all of a sudden you are on a straight and it is open on both sides with trees on both sides. That is a much more interesting progression of experiences to be hemmed in by houses on both sides then explode into the open experience on both sides than to sort of be hemmed in by houses on one side and sort of bleed into the race track on the other side. I think your logic is very good for pulling it further to the south and the more to the south that you can pull it onto--I wish these maps had more information by the way of where Charlie Marqusee's house is, where his cottage is--where those structures and where the roads are. Charlie has stated in public on several occasions that he would be willing to give up some portion of his property. I think the City might join in and, as the Planning Office has suggested, help mitigate some of the road situations with some the existing North st ROW. I think the original concept from several months ago of 2-way streets basically taking the burden of 100% of the access to the Meadows off e1ther one of the two by keeping them both open to 2-way traffic will accomplish what has been a big issue with the 7th st people not wanting all the access next to their houses and the 8th st people not wanting all the access off of theirs. Keep it realistic. Keep it 2 2-ways. Keep it a regulation roadways. One ways just don't work unless you put cones up. Amy: I agree with you in general. Graeme: I think there is a really important element that needs to be considered when it is done. And that is the trail. There is a trail plan and there is going to be a major trail that is going to bring people from Castle Creek, from the Aspen Music School, from the hospital, from Maroon Creek and maybe down valley. And the only place that that can cross the road is going to be at 7th st light. There is no other opportunity I don't think anywhere. You can't get across Main st now. You certainly won't be able to get across the road going out of town so you have a major fight and pedestrian path crossing at 7th starting down 7th. And I think that is going to be in there. It has to be in there somehow. And taking some traffic off 7th with some kind of 2 access arrangement I would think would make that trail a lot better. And I do think it is going to be really important. 7th st becomes a really major thoroughfare. It is not wide enough to handle a major thoroughfare plus a good trail system. 17 PZM11. 20.90 So I think that needs to be looked at and not put in as an afterthought. Roger: I prefer the alignment of the road south of the residential units and my reason for that is that I try to take the perspective of the users other than those arriving with the automobile. To me they take second choice as far as planning this parcel. So I really prefer the definition of the race track area not ending by a roadway but ending by the back yards as they have presented it. So as far as the alignment of the street if we are going to have to have the 7th access, at the very least I think for practical purposes it has to stay 2-way in that area. I still prefer 8th st as an access but I am getting resolved here that we are probably going to have both accesses. If we have both accesses I am saying the alignment that they are showing to the south and 2-way is preferred. Graeme: I am still confused but I wanted to make one point and that was if there is a 7th,St I agree that the houses should be on the Meadow rather than on the street. Jasmine: I agree that the houses should be as the applicant has shown. The only thing that concerns me about that is it will be very nice for those houses to have that great big back yard. I think it will be a wonderful selling feature. It will be a very nice architectural feature for the houses. How can we make sure those people don't put up great big stone walls to define their property lines. Obviously they aren't going to want people to come right up to their living room windows. I think if we could put in some kind of proviso that marking the boundary line by natural vegetation would be perfectly acceptable. Parry: We had indicated that if it is a 12,000ft lot and if you take 9 or 10,000 as the building envelope and yard and manicure it space and the back portion of the lot has to be unfenced, maintained in its natural vegetation so that you have a definition to a yard but a portion of those lots as maintained as the race track. That was the proposal that we made before. Jasmine: I have a Jasmine plan. (Using drawing) If you have 7th st coming through this way, you could have this portion of 7th St--the new 7th st be gding I-way in like this. And then 8th st could stay 2-way and you have like a kind of like plantings or something that keep people from crashing into each other over there. Amy: The same proposal as the Planning Office but having-- Roger: Aligning the street to the south. 18 PZM11. 20.90 Jasmine: I don't see any reason why you need to have the 7th st extension or the new part of 7th st be 2-lane. Because from 7th st on all the people who live on 7th st up to where it is now already have a 2-way street. But from that part from where the new part of 7th st comes in to meet the actual Meadows Rd I don't see any reason why you couldn't keep that as a single lane road. I think going to the north and having it be a single lane road would be nice because again you are going to kind of slow people down a little bit as they come into the Meadows entrance. I don't think there is any reason for speed and as long as that little I-way section is designed to make sure that there is appropriate access for emergency vehicles that that would be fine. And I think you can minimize the pavement and keep the , track that way. Welton: So you have 1 person that is for 1-way--we have somebody who is getting more comfortable with 7th st. We have somebody who is still confused. We have somebody who says 7th st is what we have been talking about for 15 years. '",.......,v Sara: I appreciate what the Planning Office is trying to do. And I would even suggest in the beginning to make if a driveway into these new home sites. It is a great idea but I also agree with Welton and the expert from Denver that as they come out of the Meadows--it is great going out of 8th st if you want to take a right on 82. But if you want to go downtown, everyone is going to take a left on Smuggler and go back to 7th. We haven't done anything. And, yes, I like the perimeter road. Welton: I think we agree like we did at the Masterplanning level that the configuration of the roads as you have proposed them is acceptable and approvable but we don't have any idea what kind of signs are going to be on those roads. Whether it is "Do Not Enter", "One Way", arrows or whatever. Parry: We are at a conceptual level here. Our next appearance before you is final. At final we have to come in and submit to you definitive plans, residential lots, road ROW, pavement. We have a lot of stuff that we need to know. If 7th st is a 2-way road, it means one thing and at the level of detail that we need to come back to you we need to know that. To put off to final this major decision means we come in for final with a bunch of slippery lots and a road that is just sliding back and forth and that we haven't firmed up. It is not staked. It is not engineered. It is not designed. It makes it impossible to submit under the level of detail required at final. ~ ......- 19 PZM11. 20.90 . So we need a decision. We feel strongly that 7th st as a 2-way relieves the congestion that Sara pointed on Smuggler. And if 8th is a double access I think that is a great solution. I am living at the Meadows this winter. I come out of the property. I go to Smuggler. I go left to 7th. I come into town. When I go home I go straight on 7th. I take a left on Smuggler and I go down 8th. You just naturally don't do anything else. And to take that residential street and not deal with the impacts that exist and will exist on it, I think it has got to be dealt with. We need some direction. Welton: What if the actual issue of whether it is 2 ways or 2 way is not stated as a condition but that the road alignment as proposed and of a size so as not to prohibit 2-way traffic. Amy: I think we can just eliminate Condition #9. votes for 2-way streets. There were 4 Welton: But Condition #9 is the only place that we are talking about 7th st access. Parry: That the Planning '& Zoning recommends that the 7th st access be on the south side of the residential homesites. Amy: I guess just to eliminate it--the proposal that is in front of you conceptual includes that. Welton: I still would feel much more comfortable including in rather than excluding it. That 7th st is accepted as shown on your SPA submittal and that the ROWs are to be wide both on 7th and 8th st so as not to prohibit 2-way traffic. Parry: Item #10. Sara: I like that one. Parry: I don't know exactly what it means. If City Engineering comes up with a clover leaf I may have a problem buying it. Welton: As shown you have no problem with it? Parry: Right. Item #11 we have no problem with. The Meadows Rd. We have always said we would go in there and saw cut it down. Then Fritz made a request to keep it a wide promenade. Whatever comes out of a final plan we are going to have to work out a detailed level with all of that. But I don't have a problem with this condition as it exists going forward. 20 PZM11. 20.90 ,or Roxanne: I think it is important to note that the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway plan shows 7th st as being the major pedestrian and 5-point corridor north and south in that whole end of Aspen. I think for design considerations with autos and all the conflicts that are inherent with that, that needs to be thought out too. The Pedestrian Plan will be required into the actual Meadows. I want to Boint out that the 7th st corridor and for all of the same reasons that the traffic engineer pointed out was appropriate for automobiles it is also appropriate for pedestrian and bikes too. Parry: We will deal with that and develop that when we can get detailed blow-ups and sections of the site that we can deal with. #12. (many people talking) Welton: #13 is the silliest thing I have ever read. Parry: #13 is silly. Amy: We did not receive any drawings, any pictures. Welton: It needs to be included about as much as #9 needed to be included. It was decided to eliminate #13. Welton: #14. Food and services shall comply with all state and local environmental health codes. , Parry: Fine. #15. We have a serious problem with high efficiency compact florescent lighting. It is not appropriate for a music rehearsal facility. It hums and doesn't go with the instruments. The point of this is that we are conscious about energy efficiency in the design of the lighting and the plumbing. Welton: I move to strike #15 as unnecessary. It is just not appropriate. They will choose the best lighting for every use as practical. I don't think we get into lighting design for houses and rehearsal halls. In my experience we have never gotten to specifying the type of light bulbs that people use for a variety of circumstances. Especially calling them high efficiency compact florescents. Parry: Energy efficiency shall be a priority in the design of the facilities at the Meadows. Welton, Jasmine and Roger: Excellent. ~ 21 PZM11. 20.90 Welton: Housing mitigation for the 23.69 low income employees shall be provided through cash-in-lieu for 16.69 employees as well as on-site housing for 7 employees, deed restricted to low income. Is that OK? Parry: Yes. Welton: OK? #17. Affordable housing units must be deed restricted. Parry: Yes. I talked to Yvonne about this. The only concern I had was that the home owner have the right to select the person that was going in there. As, long as the Housing Office qualified that as meeting the guidelines, she said that was fine. I clarified that with her and I will get something in the final. Welton: #18. Condominiumization fees. Parry: Well, I thought we had a mitigation plan in the Masterplan for affordable housing which dealt with condominiumizing and selling as free market units, the trustee houses and the new townhouses as outlined in there--the mitigation for affordable housing is outlined in there and was agreed upon in the Masterplan. And I feel a little bit back- doored on this as an additional $65,000. Jasmine: But that is standard. condominiumization fees. Condominiumization fees are Parry: Yes. And the philosophy is that if someone builds something new we can get them. If they condominiumize something we can't get them so let's put this mitigation in there for condominiumization of an existing unit. I thought we came up with a plan that was agreed upon in the Masterplan and all of a sudden another layer here. It said there was no mitigation involved with the trustee h6uses. Then it said that the trustee houses were allowed to be condominiumized and sold. And now it is saying that--yea there is not mitigation for the expansion but we really didn't come to grips with that and for the condominiumization it is $65,000 fee. Amy: If the applicant wants to take this to City Council they are the only body that can waive these fees. The intent was clear with the Masterplan in my mind that the free market of the Meadows Masterplan would mitigate as with all other development. And that we would make a special attempt to waive the housing for the institute lodge use and the Music Associates of Aspen. That was the underlying philosophy. And the rest of the free market would comply with all of our 22 PZM11. 20.90 standards. It was not discussed at the Masterplan but it was sort of like a given. Welton: Add to that--"These fees can only be waived by Council". Parry: I would love it, yes. Welton: allotments. #19. OK? New residential units must receive GMQS Parry: Yes. Welton: #20. The following areas shall be rezoned to a new zone district called OS-Open Space: etc. Gideon: We have a question on that. All of these parcels are not identical. For example the Anderson Park area is currently different setting than the Sage Meadow. We have manicured lawn there. We have art work that goes in. I am not sure that all of these should be treated the same. Welton: Add a sentence to that stating "Upon further review, some historic use of some parcels may indicate slightly different approach to zoning". Amy: In addition you can vary because of the SPA overlay. Parry: I think the definition of open space talks about picnic tables, benches and open pasture. And certainly Anderson park is a very manicured piece of open space. Welton: #21. The Rehearsal Hall will be located to the east of the music tent. Jasmine: It seems to me that from the very beginning this rehearsal hall has been sort of hovering on the edges of my consciousness as being this enormous structure. And that at various times they were talking about reducing the size of it, reducing the impact of it and that Music Associates was going to be cutting back on their programs and that it probably wasn I t going to be this big and we are going to talk about it later. I think now is the time to talk about it. I would like to know why we need to have a rehearsal hall that will seat 500 people. Robert Hart, Music Associates: We originally proposed at the Masterplanning process for a rehearsal hall with 500 seats approximately 11, OOOsqft. We have in fact reduced our student enrollment by almost 10% last year. We reduced from 1,010 students to 925 students. We have articulated in our long term goal to reduce further. I might point out though that even if we 23 PZM11. 20.90 reduce by 50% we would still be having 500 to 600 students and certainly in terms of professional development needing enough seats to accommodate our students and a facility like this makes sense from our perspective. We are going to have student performances in that facility. We need to have enough seats to house the students and faculty members that represent our enrollment. Harry Teague, architect: Went into great detail regarding the 2 locations considered for the Rehearsal Hall. We feel there are some very compelling arguments for it being on the west. We feel we can do a better job of mitigating the impact in a western location. Gideon: We are willing to go along with the recommendation of the Planning Office. Graeme: To me the most important aspect of it all is the service access. And I think as more and more vehicles penetrate into the space that is my biggest consideration. I am for it on the east. Jasmine, Roger, Sara and Welton agreed. -- Parry: Robert: Welton: ?: We Welton: Parry: Welton: Parry: Welton: Parry: Welton: #22. We will provide that by final. #23. are not asking for any more than the Masterplan dictates. , #24. That is fine. #25. That is fine. #26. Yes. #27. Gideon: We have a question on that. That is a brand new item. We are the non-profits and we are going to be spending an awful lot of money. All of a sudden this is a new requirement that costs quite a bit of money. Parry: That is a huge parcel of property and it is going to be-- Gideon: We wonder why we have to be the first to-- Welton: Because they have a new autocat system upstairs and they just--they got to play with it somehow. , 24 PZM11. 20.90 Chuck: I have checked with some surveyors and there is almost no cost associated with it if the surveyor has the equipment. (much loud laughter) Chuck: There are at least 2 surveyors in the area that have the equipment. It is not unreasonable in saying there is 2 surveyors who will do the survey work and digitizing is part of the procedure. Welton: What is digitizing? Parry: It is one of those things that sounds real easy. Welton: What is wrong with the 10 million maps that have already been drawn by hand of this property over the last 20 years? Chuck: If their surveyor doesn't have it then I don't know that it is a reasonable request. Jasmine: It is only request--not being required. MOTION '",,"-' Welton: Would somebody make a motion to approve the conceptual SPA plan with the conditions that the final development plan address the issues and questions listed on the memo of November, 20, 1990 listed #1 through #27 as amended or deleted as added to or as re-written. (Attached in record) Roger: I so move. Graeme seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Tim~ was ~~50pm. /1 CIt' 25