Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910312 U ~t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 12. 1991 Meeting was called to order by Roger Hunt at 4:30pm. Roger: The first order of business will be entertaining nominations for an acting chairperson for this meeting. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Mari Peyton. Jasmine Tygre was excused and Welton Anderson was absent. Roger: I will entertain nominations for an acting chair person for this meeting. Richard: I nominate Roger Hunt. There was discussion here which was not clear on the tape. Roger: I think what I will do is announce at this point that specifically concerning the trolley issue portion of this agenda, I will abstain from voting. I don I t have any conflict of interest. I don I t think I am any more partial to the trolley than I am with any other form of transportation system in my actions on it. So the best and fairest way of doing this if I am to be the chairman for this, I personally see no need to step down and be gagged which is the only alternative. And that is one I refuse to do. Mari: Do you intend to present on the trolley question. Roger: No. I am not going to be a presenter. Mari: Then I don't think you need to abstain from voting. Jed Caswall, City Attorney: There is nothing in the Aspen City Ordinance which addresses conflict of interest which would require Roger to abstain from voting on the trolley proposal. I have made a recommendation which you all are familiar with. It is in my memo to Roger which I copied you all on it. That memo also makes it clear as reflected in the ordinance that Roger could not be a presenter of the application. If Roger was to be the Chair of the meeting, and I don't know of anything that would prevent him from doing that, he has indicated that he would disqualify himself-- Roger: No. I indicated that I would abstain from voting on the trolley issue. PZM3.12.91 Jed: Well, if you abstain from voting on the trolley issue then I am assuming you are going to give up the chair to somebody else to hear the matter to chair the part of the meeting on the trolley. Roger: No. That isn't what I said. I said I would go ahead and chair this thing but if that were the case I would just announce beforehand that I would abstain from any specific vote about the trolley issue. Jed: So it would still be your intention then to chair the-- Roger: It would still be my intention to chair the meeting and I have given up my right to vote on the trolley issues. Jed: Well, again, as expressed in my circumstances I think that appearance of greater than what was previously. memo under those impropriety is even Roger: Then I should vote? Jed: So I guess a lot of it depends upon if Roger is going to decide that he has no conflict that he feels comfortable in voting on this measure. Again, there is nothing in the ordinance that prevents him from doing that. However, that does mean that someone in the public could challenge the validity of the decision that is rendered by this Board if, in fact, Roger remains on the Board and chairs the meeting and, in fact, votes on it. All I am saying is that he will not have violated the Municipal Code. But that doesn't insulate the decision that is rendered by the Board on this matter dealing with the trolley from challenge on the basis that the decision was subj ect to undue influence or bias or partiality. So that is what I was saying--if Roger was going to abstain, and I interpreted what he means abstain from the trolley a matter which would mean he would remove himself from the Board. Then that would lessen the appearance of impropriety and lessen the chance that somebody could make an argument that the decision of the Board, if it were favorable or unfavorable, that the decision of the Board on the trolley should be subject to challenge for partiality. If he remains then that possibility exists. Again, if he was to abstain then somebody else would have to act as the Chair and then whoever was chairing that issue before the Board would have the authority to recognize or not recognize people from the floor pursuant to the public hearing. Roger: Normally when we ask for yeas and nays and someone 2 PZM3.12.91 decides to abstain and so states at that time, that is what abstinence means in the vote. Jed: All I am telling you is that under general principles of conflicts of interest, particularly with public officials, abstention means--it is more broad than that. You do not involve yourself in the decision making process. Voting is one of the elements in the decision making process. But that does not comprise the entire decision making process. Roger: I have nothing to remove myself from this Board for on this issue as far as conflict of interest. Jed: Well, as I indicated to you, you have talked about that before and that is a decision that you make. Roger: Yes. And-- Mari: You have made the decision so let's continue. Roger: But by the same token the rest of the Board has helped me make this decision to some degree. Now is there any comments by Board members assuming that I decide to chair this and not continue on with this and announcing beforehand that I will vote neither yea or nay on any trolley project. Mari: I myself have no problem even if you did vote. Sara: Yes. I would hate to see, especially since you feel so strongly about this, and this is an important project for the community, I would hate to see it jeopardized by a citizen coming and saying that it was under the influence. Why even risk it, Roger? I would like to nominate Mari Peyton as chairman. Roger: I am going to second this nomination. Mari Peyton was voted to chair this meeting by secret ballot. Roger: I would like to mention that I do not plan on refusing myself or abstaining from the trolley project under these circumstances and plan to be a full voting member of the Board. Leslie, Planning Office: Is this resolved? Roger: It is as far as I am concerned. Bruce: It is Roger's call. He as made the call. So let's go on. 3 PZM3.12.91 Jon Busch: As the presenter---Jon asked a question here but there was something exploding in the mike---does anybody know? Has it ever happened? Does it mean we go back to square one and have to do it allover again? ?: It is my experience--I did this once with the HPC and because there was an unqualified person with a conflict of interest in the vote the vote was cancelled and we had to go back and go through the whole process. Jed: Let me ask what is the nature of the proceeding here today? Leslie: Conceptual SPA which is a two-step process to P&Z and to Council. Jed: So the final decision will be-- Leslie: P&Z makes a recommendation to city council. Jed: Well, under normal circumstances a decision such as this will not be subject or to use a term of art--will not be right for judicial review until such time there is a final decision. The final decision will be rendered by the City Council. At such time if somebody wishes to come in and make a challenge of that decision based upon what happens here today, they would be hard pressed. But it is not out of the realm of possibility and this is just a conceptual approval. Jon: I would like Roger not to vote. I just don't want to have to go through this again. Roger: I will see when that time comes. Jed: I will say for the record this is not a frivolous request. Obviously the person with the most at stake is the applicant and the applicants can certainly ask that if they perceive that someone on the Board has a conflict of interest or should excuse themselves they should make that request of record. And the response to that should also be made of record. Jon: P&Z and Council went through a process a long time ago validating the various kinds of systems to provide a shuttle service. The conclusion of those bodies was the trolley was the best of the options available. In that respect Roger being an advocate since it has already been decided that the trolley is the best of the options that were out there that we are now evaluating that specific option. Maybe there is less appearance of conflict. 4 PZM3.12.91 ?: I would say that I don't want to have to do it again either. I would prefer that Roger didn't vote. That is his decision to make. Roger: It is actually my decision and I will applicant's request under advisement when it comes down at the trolley issue as to what I do at that time. take the to voting Jon: I would request that he consider not voting. Jed: Madam Chairperson, may I be excused now that I have sufficiently parted the waters. Request was granted. Leslie: You have asked repeatedly for an update on the Ritz schedule. Amy will be here on the 19th and give you an update on that schedule. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: I leaned today on the Ritz Carlton that all of the workers have been sent home. Everyone packed up and left. And #2 I would like to protest Welton's absences. I think it has become an impediment to the Commission. Mari: In what way would you like to protest. Sara: Notifying city Council. Roger: On that I happened to encounter Bill Stirling yesterday and informed him of Graeme's resignation and he was rather surprised. So I have a feeling that Council was not officially notified of the resignation. Mari: The resignation should have been given to the council rather than to us because they are the appointing body. So staff can carry forward that resignation and Sara's comment about the absences of Welton. SPA REVIEW SNOWMELT. ART PARK/THEATRE. TROLLEY/RECYCLING Leslie, Planning Dept: attached in record. Made presentation all of the above as Mari: I have a question about the possibility of a railroad terminal. will that be in the middle of the ball field? 5 PZM3.12.91 Leslie: My understanding in talking to Tom about the railroad is that the station would probably take up this area in here--this parking area in here--and a little bit of the ball field and it would not really encroach into--we are not looking at eliminating this whole space for the rail station. It will be more up in this corner. But you would have the lines and I am not sure of the direct alignment of the tracks. The station itself will be up in this area here. Mari: I just feel it is important in all of these applications we keep in mind that we don't want to do anything that precludes having a rail station there. And I just--it seems like in this memo it is just not even referred to or shown on the map. I think it would be a good idea if it were. An approximate location and an approximate alignment so we could picture that. Roger: I have a feeling that the rail station would take most of the ball park and probably be aligned just to the north of the Rio Grande Way in that southern portion of the ball park along Rio Grande Way. Leslie: You mean Spring street Extension. The thing I checked with Tom on was that if we are looking at a permanent building down here that in any way encroach into the space of the train station and he assured me that it did not. Mari: I think it would be helpful if maybe at the next stage have an overlay showing how that would interface. Leslie: Roger and Jon assured me that the wires and the poles and the tracks in here are easy to take out. This in fact works as kind of a dual track--that the circle is the best option because the cars don't have to stop and pass and wait and reverse. I would like us to discuss half way around or not. So I recommended conceptual approval of the carbarns given their routing issues encircling the field. The conflict here with the road and the trail and trying to determine a specific alignment in connecting with the art parking. For the snowmelter I recommended until an alternative location is found that the Engineering Dept continue to work more diligently with the Art Park people to try to incorporate some of their facilities with the Art Park plan and that we continue our effort to re-locate the facility. Chuck brought to my attention that we do have an urban runnoff management plan that identifies various sites throughout the City for retaining urban runnoff in event of a storm. 6 PZM3.12.91 The Aspen Sanitation District site has been identified. This site has been talked about. So prior to final submission we would like the Engineering Dept to give us a better readout of really what would be required at this point to update the plan and then what would be required and what kind of land uses are we looking at this site given that management plan. There has been some concern expressed during our conceptual amendment of this bike path being in direct conflict with the snow dump area and the snowmelt area. The bike path goes right across the area. And the plans are to have a trail that connects with the river but we really did not talk about eliminating this path. I would like the Engineering Dept to explore maybe shifting some things around here so the bike path has a clear shot and is not in such conflict with snow dump trucks and the snowmelting. Mari: trail whole As far as the trail situation, wasn't it planned to have a right along the riverside? So it seems to me that the thing here is having a north-south connection. Leslie: We wanted to have both actually is what it came down to. We wanted to have the trail connect down along the river so people could go along the river. But this is such an important connection in this end of town over to Clark's and the post office that we didn't want to eliminate this. And that maybe during the winter we could come up with some kind--if things could be shifted around. Ultimately the desire is to re-Iocate the whole facility. But until that time there has been a request that we consider shifting things around. This is really tight right here. You walk right by the snowmelter and the cats that are coming up pulling the snow up. So that as part of final submission we are asking Engineering Dept to explore relocating some of the functions on the site. Roger: The pedestrian bikeway plan did identify both of those trails and the one you are showing in brown there by the snowmelter was considered to be more of a commuter aspect trail where the one along the river was considered to be more of a walking trail. Leslie: Then for the Art Park and the Arts Theatre: The biggie is that we are recommending tabling review of the theatre building until such time that the applicant can demonstrate to us that this is the best and the only site available for a theatre. I pretty much feel like tabling this giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt given the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan, how the land was bought and the idea of the park in the open space. 7 PZM3.12.91 staff and I think that the theatre building is--that this is not the appropriate site. However I would not like to close the door on them. I would like the applicants to explore and give P&Z and staff the ability to determine that this is in fact the only site for a small theatre for Aspen. staff also recommends that if the P&Z conceptually approves a theatre building for this site that the employee housing not be approved for this site. That virtually turns this site into a 24 hour use. It is a public park open space site and to have housing down there turns it into a 24 hour area and according to our Fire Marshal once you put housing down there and your have residents down there that the all weather access road required to service that building would really impact this site. Then we recommend conceptual approval of the Art Park Plans and prior to final submission we are recommending that they clearly identify their program from a element perspective and from a budget perspective especially our Parks Dept is very interested in working with the Art Park. But they need to know for their budget what is going to be required of them and at what point in time is going to be required of them. As final submission for all of these applications anything that is going to be required funding City expenditures needs to be identified and in a long term manner also so the City knows if they are getting into supporting the program in the long term or if it is something that this program can support itself in the long term with assistance from the City. And no further site work be initiated until stream Margin Review happens. We have had a lot of things happen down there without the benefit of stream Margin Review. stream Margin Review is crucial and things have been happening and we just want to try and get a handle on that so we can bring everything in at once and do the stream Margin Review before anything else happens--or stream Margin exemption. But that is really up to the Engineering Dept working with the Army Corp to determine what requires full stream Margin Review. Jon Busch, spokesman for the trolley: The Aspen street Railway-- the first company did not exist until 1977. It was as a private venture and the venture was dissolved and the trolley became City property in 1981. So we are now merely advocates of people who live and work in Aspen who think the trolley shuttle is a good idea. The group is made up of Meade Metcalf, Bob Grueder, Dan Arrow, Roger Hunt and myself. The purpose of the shuttle route was tailored to conform to recommendations made many times over the years. Simply stated 8 PZM3.12.91 the route connects in a lineal fashion destination of traffic generation of traffic across town. On the south the Rubey Park Transit Center, the Gondola, the Ritz Carlton Hotel and the proposed public park and ice rink. On the other end is the Parking Garage, Library, Teen Center, Art Museum, Art Park, Post Office, Retail Center and the proposed Regional Transit Terminal. In between is downtown Aspen. He then showed slides of trolleys in other communities to demonstrate trolleys in tight corridors, noise generation, etc. I will just run through the referral comments in the memo. The first one is RFTA. Dan Blankenship pointed out that the RFTA Board would have to take the shuttle's funding from existing programs. But that is a decision that the Board would have to make. with the support of both the Pitkin County commissioners and the City Council my guess is that funding can be found. But on the other hand I would mention that in 1977 when we proposed the project, as a private operation, we used a formula based on 1/3 of winter visitors riding the trolley and paying a dollar to ride it. That paid the operating costs. We incomes to fund the capitalization. some sort of modest token fair of 50 pay to operate the system. used summer So if push cents or so and peripheral came to shove, would probably The Fire Dept had some serious concerns about the overhead wire on Galena Street if there were a fire at one of the tall buildings. First of all the trolley wire would be 18 to 20 feet above the street. The poles being in the center of the street eliminates support wires going across the street and make it much cleaner. There is very little in the way there. We would propose to locate at the fire station a power system cutoff and appropriate safety indicators so that any time a fire is reported along the trolley route the power can be shut off to the whole trolley system before a fire truck ever leaves the fire station. Aspen Consolidated San District: I can simply say that we are working with them. As you all know the Galena Street sewer line is the oldest one in the system and they will be replacing it in the next few years. They are ready to do that whenever we are ready to put in the trolley which we are shooting for the Spring of 1992 at this time. Regarding the trash and the recycling center: I spoke with Jim Duke and Don Ensign who did this for us. The trolley barn can 9 PZM3.12.91 move everywhere. This area here accommodates the existing recycling program. This functions as a loading dock. The truck bed level is the same level as the ground above it. The bins for the glass etc you would simply walk over and dump them down into the bins. However he has indicated that he needs more space than that. While it could effectively be this whole thing we also have the potential to move the car barn all the way over to here, put the road in back of i t--then the road doesn't cross the trolley tracks at all, put the recycling center in back of it as well. The other thing is recycling could go here. The trolley barn can position anywhere in this area. Sara: How many cars are you talking about? Jon: 6 cars. In circling the playing field, the loop we have proposed functions, in effect, as a double track segment. It allows a maximum scheduling of vehicles. The scheduling anticipates 2 cars on the system. A single track is no problem in that scenario. 4th of July, Labor Day, Christmas week--those are the occasions when the city might want to have more vehicles on the line. If you choose to go with a single track we recommend that it be placed on the north side of the playing field. We recommend the lower course as well because it does most clearly address your concerns about the overhead wire and also gets it closer to the trail, the Art Museum and the Art Park. We would want to have a little passing track right in this area that could effectively make this more flexibly serve more vehicles should they need to be run and also that we could stage a vehicle here in case a play is getting out. The Art Museum is having something for which they have chartered a car so that the car could sit there and wait and be there for the delegates for whatever was happening in these events. Snow removal and parking on Galena Street: We recommend no parking changes and we feel that the trolley will work with the streets as they are. We will work with streets to develop a regimen for removing snow. It should be said that trolleys will be 2 feet from the center post in the street so that there will be 4 feet in between the trolleys as they pass on the street. And because the trolleys are smaller than our buses and narrower than our bus is it is going to leave a lot of room in the street and we just don't anticipate problems with cars. 10 PZM3.12.91 You mention weight of the trolleys on mall bricks and trail crossings. Where the trolley goes through the mall it will be supported under the brick much as it will be elsewhere under pavement which also includes wherever the trails are. The support for the trolley track has nothing to do with the surface. It is under the surface. We will also be relying heavily on an engineering level detailed track construction system that was devised by the Melbourne Metropolitan Tramway Board in Australia. They operate a huge trolley system over there. Regarding the employee housing system: Gibson who has volunteered to design design it to accommodate housing. The biggest issue is the Teen Center routing. At your prompting the Teen Center architects provided us with a 7% grade which is very manageable. It is better than we had anticipated. I will only mention that the carbarn is happy to Special concerns have been raised about the narrowness of this corridor and potential for pedestrian and bicycle's conflict. The trail meets the 8ft community standard width in it's entirety. In the narrow segment between the Teen Center, however, when a trolley goes by, that 8ft segment is reduced to 6ft. Several things can be done, we feel, to mitigate this problem. One is it may be possible to gain another foot by moving the tracks closer to the Teen Center so that it would be 2ft from the Teen Center instead of 3ft. The down side of this is that if a pedestrian should for some reason be on the wrong side of the track even though the trolley is going slowly, there would be a marginal area of safety for the person that is standing against the building when the trolley went by. Also we can physically separate the track to keep people off the track. One option is to place sod or loose grass between the rails which are to one side of the pedestrian trail and another would be to use the rail next to the pedestrian way as a curb in effect by raising it a track height above the pedestrian trail so in effect it becomes a curb and literally a barrier that people can't get onto the track. Even though site lines are good in this corridor and people will be able so see a trolley coming from a distance either way, would be to install a cautionary signaling system. 11 PZM3.12.91 We concur with the Parks Dept recommendation that because the corridor is narrow and is in shade through much of the day that snowmelting would be a good idea. Irrespective of the trolley the trail will probably have to be snowmelted. We also would seriously consider the idea that perhaps the trolley track area itself should be snowmelted because then there would be no snow removal involved in that corridor at all. Finally we would recommend particularly the trail system in that area be serviced in such a way as to discourage skate boarding. Skate boards are quite uncontrollable and would be a menace to anyone on the trail and will absolutely be used if they can be. The Planning Office has asked us to look at alternatives to routing in the area between the jail and the Teen Center. Early on in the process one option was examined--that of using Mill Street. This was eliminated because of extensive underground utilities in both the street and in the alley next to the parking garage. And thirdly because the Mill and Main intersection is already tremendously congested. It just didn't make sense from a lot of ways. Every study from 1973 to the present has recommended Galena Street as the shuttle corridor. The Rio Grande Drive which is going to Rio Grande Drive to Spring Street coming up Spring Street to Main street coming back on Main street to Galena Street and then up Galena Street puts the trolley 5 blocks out of it's way and basically the distance between Main street and Durant Street are out of the way. And it defeats the shuttle--any kind of shuttle. So we don't consider that a very good option. A third option suggested was that the trolley just stop at the roof of the Parking Garage. That would work and then we would end up using the track between the Teen Center strictly to get cars to and from the carbarn site. The only problem with that is the P&Z's own resolutions ask that the trolley shuttle serve the post office and the market area. That would eliminate that plus the Art Park and the Art Museum. It would eliminate a lot of the purpose in having the shuttle system. There is a final alternative. That would be to turn the trolley in back of the Courthouse, go over through the jail parking lot and down the driveway which presently accesses the Sheriff's parking lot. There are some problems there as well. #1 is that that driveway is as narrow as the corridor between the Teen Center so there will be conflict between police cars and trolleys. The 2nd is that the Sheriff's Office would lose some parking. 12 PZM3.12.91 The 3rd problem is that the tracks would then be going next to prisoner's sleeping quarters. Sara: My first question to Leslie is why she recommends conceptual approval when there are so many conditions that still have to come in. Leslie: The conditions as I laid out here in my memo or-- Sara: Also housing. You have already recommended that there should be no housing for the theatre yet there will be housing perhaps with the carbarn. Leslie: Housing is not a part of this proposal. First off we are saying that housing should be a special issue because they really don't have the ability. It is Council's call--housing mitigation but GMQS Exemption is not exemption from mitigation. So although they say that constructing the building to, in the future, accommodate housing on top, we are saying it is a threshold issue and we think it needs to be addressed. The difference between housing at the theatre site vs housing on the carbarn site is there is kind of a perception difference. Granting recognizing the caveat that we have a little bit of a war zone down there with the snowmel ter and that that isn't a perceived urban rural open park area the ultimate goal is to re- locate the snowmel ter and to put housing further down on that property closer to the river is in direct conflict with Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and with the purchase of the site with 6th penney money. The purchase of the impound lot with 7th penney money which is transportation money. Both applicants have to address housing in one way or another. Sara: It also seems, Jon, like a very high energy consumption transportation system. Using electricity. Jon: We went into that a long time ago. Actually trolleys are cheaper to operate and is the most fuel-efficient and least expensive and the least polluting. It is the cheapest way. We have been through that in a number of studies over the years. It doesn't pollute. It is quiet and it is cheaper. To me it is appropriate because to move to the next step to develop a final plan, we need to know what your conditions are, what your concerns are in order to design a plan. Leslie: One of the points of conceptual is to flush out all of these ideas and issues. There are issues that are conceptually based that you can't really move beyond conceptual until you identify basic issues. 13 PZM3.12.91 We want the applicant to know what we are concerned about and our recommendation is structured so that before we get that final application that had better be addressed in the final application. Then we have a better idea when we look at the details in the final submission that those issues that we have identified conceptually are being addressed. Bruce: This doesn't specifically relate to the trolley. It seems as if these projects that are on government land acquire a life of their own. Just take the Youth Center for example. It was just one of those things where the ball kind of got rolling and then before we knew it we were looking at SPA approvals for this project. I don't know that anybody ever really sat down and said "How are we going to plan this whole piece of land down here?" I have a concern that we may be finding ourselves the same way with the trolley. Jon did a great job of itemizing the history of this project from 1973 to now and it is like a snowball. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and we have gotten certain levels of approval along the way. We have letters from the County and we have letters for Mayor Bill saying this is a great project. My fear is that if we get into an SPA--a formal land use approval--again, we are sort of placing our stamp of approval on a project even though it is preliminary, even though it is conceptual, that these things kind of acquire a life of their own whether they are the right thing or not. I am not just picking on the trolley. The same thing can be said about the Youth Center, the Art Park, the snowmelt. It has developed a life of its own. It is almost as if it is a permanent place for it now. Mari: We keep trying to kill it but-- Bruce: It just keeps coming back from the ashes. So that is my concern about this whole process--this conceptual approval. That somehow we contribute to these projects developing a life of their own when maybe this is not the right place for the Art Park or the trolley barn or whatever. Richard: Can you be more specific about which side of the path by the Youth Center the track will be on? Jon: It is close to the Youth Center. Richard: So there will be a trail crossing at Rio Grande Way? 14 PZM3.12.91 Jon: No. The trail will not cross the tracks. Richard: Then the Pedestrian Trails Committee recommended widening the pedestrian areas on Galena street so you are coming in here saying it won't affect the parking but I believe that has already been recommended to change the parking on Galena street. So that needs to be dealt with between now and final. Jon: I didn't want to get into that. But R&L is recommending that Galena street become a pedestrian transit corridor with no parking at all. It is like getting close to malling and I don't like to mention that word. What I am saying is that nothing needs to change for us. Richard: Those plans do accommodate the trolley and 2 lanes of traffic? Jon: Yes. And if you want to mall it, that is up to you. Richard: There is no snow clearing on the pedestrian trails right now. Leslie, is there anything in the works to add snow clearance to the trail system through there? You are talking about having snowmelt on the 7% grade there. Leslie: In the comments from the Parks Dept they were concerned particularly about this section between the Youth Center and the jail because as it is all built up so there is really no ability for the sun to melt the trails. They have not addressed the rest of the trail. The Pedestrian Plan identifies a priority system with the trails and what trails should not be plowed in the winter so people can cross country ski on them. We will co-ordinate the trails with the pedestrian plan and the trolley. Richard: On the trolley barn itself what is the profile the relief above grade? Jon mumbled something here. Richard: The main floor would be basically at the present grade? Jon: Probably a little bit lower. 3ft down from the road. That area is already about Richard: On the housing mitigation--is RFTA required presently to mitigate its housing impacts? I am unclear on why this pUblic transportation system has to do it because the building is being built in the City? 15 PZM3.12.91 Leslie: I am not clear on how the RFTA building was approved originally. Richard: I mean RFTA as an organization. Leslie: Well, you are required to mitigate per square footage that you build. So we are only talking mitigation for this building. within the City's growth management system people have the ability to seek growth management exemption for essential public service. What that means is that you do not have to compete. It doesn't mean that you do not have to mitigate your impact. I am unclear on how the whole RFTA bus barn development in the County was approved. I could check that for you. Mari: Do we know how many employees we are talking about at this stage? Jon: It is in the study. 7--something like that. Sara: The history of this is trolleys were given to the City. A group bought them. Michael Hernstadt-- Jon: He bailed us out. Sara: So the city accepted this gift which I guess is explicit approval of the transportation system. I don't understand this transportation system. I don't understand the need for it. It is like a Disneyland sort of ride that is in conflict with RFTA which is free. I would think it would require some licensing. Cab companies might object because you are charging a fee. We are being asking to approve a concept of a trolley. I don't approve of a trolley. Jon: The trolley project--in 1973 Vorhees recommended a cross town shuttle. In 1978 Parsons, etc in their downtown parking and pedestrian plan recommended a cross town shuttle on Galena st. In 1986 Lay, Scott and Cleary in their valley transit masterplan recommended a cross town shuttle on Galena st. In 1989 R&L Design who built the parking garage recommended a cross town shuttle on Galena st and oriented the elevator and access to the parking garage to Galena st. So there is an historic precedent. All we propose to do and all we have ever proposed to do is we are seeking corporate sponsors who will sponsor an individual trolley car for $300,000. The trolley system will be built and the cars will be refurbished with that money. It has been done in Dallas. At that point the 16 PZM3.12.91 whole system is given to the city. If the City chooses to charge a fair to ride on it that is fine. If the city wants to subsidize it and have it a free fair system which is what we propose which is what most meets the criteria established in those studies, that is find. It is out of our hands. We are not a private company. None of us have done any of this for any money. There has never been any money in it. There has only been loss in it. We still owe the consultant $1,800. We went out into the City of Aspen and raised $26,000 for the feasibility study which the city of Aspen asked to have done. Sara: Well, studies are one thing, Jon, we built a parking garage for parking and what people do is another thing. I just think it is too cute. Jon: These trolleys are in historic character of Aspen. You have got to have people actually want to ride it. And if you-- any cities which have built trolley lines, people will ride trolleys old or modern who won't ride buses. So in the case of RFTA--if you are going to have a shuttle and some people would argue the parking garage to the mountain is only 5 blocks. Why can't somebody walk it? But PDQ & D's study indicated that over 70% of people interviewed on the streets in Aspen about 80% of the people parked within 2 blocks of where they were going. 70% parked within a block and a half from where they wanted to go. The public won't walk 5 blocks. If there is going to be a shuttle system it needs to be attractive. The difference between the trolley and the other alternative is that it fits the historic character of Aspen. Galena is our most historic street with the oldest buildings. It fits. They are small and attractive and they are real. Mari: My understanding of it is we are going to have something running up and down Galena st. And is it going to be another smelly RFTA bus or is it going to be a trolley. And in fact if you are not successful with getting sponsorships for the cars to be refurbished then maybe what will we wind up having? My feeling about it is we are going to have some kind of shuttle going up and down Galena and this is a proposal that has been recommended by various studies. It may not work because the capitol cost to get it going is quite a lot and it is not going to be the City that is going to be doing that. It is going to be private citizens. If it is going to be the trolley we should try to make it work as best we can. 17 PZM3.12.91 I know P&Z recommended the circling of the ball field. But the more I look at that the more I wonder if that is really going to be so convenient for the post office and Clark's Market anyway. You are still going to have to cross busy Mill street. What are we going to do? Put up a traffic light there and stop the traffic. I mean it is hell trying to get across the street there. And I am just wondering whether that is really practical and whether it really is a good tradeoff to wrap those tracks all the way around the ball field for the uncertain advantage of having service to the market. Richard: That is a lot of tracks running around especially given the fact that if a train comes in then half a mile will be torn up anyway. And I understand there is a marginal advantage in moving the cars around to have a loop rather than an in-and-out. So that I am not sure where I stand on that tradeoff between convenience for the movement of the cars and the smallest physical impact on the area. Jon: I have no problem with single track. There was some contention amongst us as to whether that would be acceptable. Mari: How about a show of hands on this. Bruce: I much prefer, if we assume that we are looking at north/south transportation for a straight shot. Mari: I think we have consensus that we are reversing our earlier position about the track wrapping around the field. Richard: It is probably going to be dead end and reverse out on the other end anyway. Jon: No. The other end loops around Dean and Galena and goes around the ice rink. It goes to the Ritz. Leslie: So is that a wrapping around? Mari: I don't really see that it needs to go any further than the trolley barn. Richard: I would recommend going over to Mill street definitely. Whichever way it is done, I think that is important. Roger: My goal is to have a operable transportation system for the community. This could be done as far as I am concerned by a chair lift. I want to see a system that operates completely and efficiently. I am looking at it from the transportation point of view and I am willing to compromise some land use points of view 18 PZM3.12.91 in that process because my priority is the most effective transportation. As far as the operation of vehicles. Yes, it can be done. But when you switch or reverse a car you are looking about a 5 minute stopover at an end as opposed to just continuing around, picking up people in effect a 2-way track without a stop. But that can be accommodated with a by-pass track and maybe a fork at the end. I prefer the loop. However it is fully operable as a I-way with a bypass track. My reason for liking the loop is that you could have almost all 6 vehicles on the system at the same time. The short portion of single trackage is very minimal with a loop at each end. A 2-way system continually operating is a better system from my point of view. After a show of hands: Mari: It looks like we have a consensus on the shorter version. Roger: Shows you how much influence I have on the Board. Richard: On the recycling--are you intending that as a permanent facility or is this recycling facility until pickup is established throughout the community or do you just foresee a need for dropoff. Jim Duke: We have been debating that for several months now. Our conclusion is that regardless how we get the curb side program going, we will always have a high transient population and we should always have a facility available and we would like to gear it up as much as possible. My ideal plan would be getting close to 20,000sqft indoors. The minimum that we would like to go with would still be from 6 to 8,000sqft which we could fit both of those on there if we eliminated the parking. We are at a point right now where that is a temporary bandaid. Mari: Are there any more comments on the trolley segment of the presentation? Bruce: I understand you to say the poles are going to be in the middle of the street. Jon: We bought ornaments a long time ago in Lisbon to put on the poles. We have dressed them up and put a victorian kind of ornamentation on them. " 19 PZM3.12.91 Nobody ever liked doing them on the side of the streets because then you have got cable stretched across the streets. This concept is the least obtrusive. It is what will be seen the least. Leslie: I was going to suggest that maybe we just close on the trolley but not come to any--you do not have to act on any of our recommendations yet. I would encourage you to see everything in total. ART PARK Alan Richman: I think it is important for everybody to remember that in the 15 or so years that the community has been doing planning for the Rio Grande there really have been 3 things that have been talked about repeatedly. It has always been talked about as transportation center. It has always been talked about for open space purposes. But it has also been identified as an appropriate site for performing arts facility for years. In fact at least 3 major planning efforts that were done in the 1980s these being the 1980/81 Rio Grande Task Force Report, it was identified as an appropriate place for a performing arts facility. The 1984 statement of intent for the Rio Grand SPA which the P&Z and Council both adopted recognize this as an appropriate site for cultural uses. And then your 1988 Conceptual SPA Plan which was then adopted by City Council again identified both parking/cultural uses as appropriate for the site. Over the 10 years of the 1980s that performing arts has been looked at for the site there really have been 2 major shifts that have occurred with respect to the facility. #1, the proposal for performing arts facility has decreased in size significantly. When it was first in this community we were looking at something over 1,000 seats with major impacts. A facility much larger than any facility in the downtown area like the Wheeler. Now we are just talking about 200 seats. It is a much smaller theatre for a much different purpose. Secondly the location is moved. Originally the Performing Arts Facility was to be located near Capp's. Now we are looking at the area by the snow dump. That move to this location is something the City accepted very clearly in Reso 37 of 1988. There is just a 1 line statement--I shall read to you. It is a condition of a conceptual approval that was granted to the Rio Grande. It says "The city shall reserve the area known as the snow dump for future arts usage". What we are here to do tonight is to take up that challenge that the city gave to the community back in 1988 that the snow dump is 20 PZM3.12.91 an appropriate site for Arts usage. In our application we really took that for granted. We felt that the City had very clearly decided that this was an appropriate place and that we would go ahead and implement that decision. We found in the Planning Office's memo that there were major questions that you would still like to see us answer about the appropriateness of this site for the proposed use. That is why we are more than prepared to answer all of those questions tonight. Harry Teague: Presented slides of the site. This is the site as it looked yesterday just after the night's snowfall and it is the territory that the Art Park has been allowed to deal with so far. I wish I had a "before" picture. This is actually a runnoff retention pond for the City drainage system and it does have a constant supply of water. This is one of the activities of the Art Park to landscape around it. This is what the rest of the park gets used for most of the time. It is one of the piles of the snowmelt facility. This is the so-called open space that we are talking about putting the theatre building on. This is more open space that we are talking about putting the theatre on. This is how it is currently used. Right now what happens is the snow gets piled up. This machine runs 24 hours a day lugging the snow from the big pile and putting it in this snowmelter over here. That black stuff you saw is what comes out of the snowmelter when they are done. This is the area that would be impacted by year-round road coming to the theatre company building. Maybe a paved lane--the minimum width required by the Fire Department. The Theatre Company Building would be located right about here. After it goes through the snowmelter, it goes through this green pipe across this little ditch with the styrofoam peanuts in it to this pond. This is the snowmelt retention pond. It is meant to fill up this pond and flow into a secondary pond. But what happens is it seeps down into the soil. This is mainly fill here so who knows where it is going? Probably rather directly into the river. Although it must get filtered somewhat by the soil. This is where it is meant to go. This is empty. It has never been filled. That Cottonwood on the left was a healthy Cottonwood a while ago. This is the kind of debris left around the site. This is what the people across the river have to look at right now. The current usage--that is the Art Museum in the background. There are some more Cottonwoods that have been destroyed by the process. This is some of the sludge sliding down the bank into the river. Here is some more on it's way to Basalt. This is the site of the theatre company building right here. The current platform of the tent that the theatre company 21 PZM3.12.91 uses right there. It has been driven over by several large pieces of equipment. The mud was so deep I couldn't walk across here at this time and I am standing on what is now the bike path that transverses this site. Here are some people with a baby wending their way across the traffic--the machines zooming back and forth. I don't think I need to say too much more. This is the open space that we are talking about. The Art Park has been in existence for 2 years. We recognize this site as having immense potential. It could be one of the great parks in our area. And we have been working very hard. We have taken whatever little portion that we have been given. Here are pictures of members of the public and Art Park on the first Art Park Day working very hard making things, cleaning fences, building a fence so you didn't see the garbage in the land that we weren't allowed to touch yet. Cleaning out the trees along the side, digging out big rocks, planting flowers. This area right now is so beautiful. Dick Durance's Iris's have come up in this little triangle. People walk by--my office looks out over this area and people come and take pictures in this area. Couples go along and sit on the bench and look at it. But we haven't been allowed to progress beyond the fence. Here is what it looks like right now on the Art Parks side. It is used in the winter. It is gorgeous. The river is gorgeous. It is constant traffic with people walking from employee housing to town and to the post office. There is art along the way. We are successful in introducing art into the everyday experience as you walk along the path. OK. What can we do? We have got to move the snow dump. completely incompatible with that site--with any use that to do with that site. Where do we put it? Hal Clark has with a great solution. (Much gasping from Board members) This is where it should go. This is Owl Creek Road at the airport. That is the airport on the right. This is about 2.3 miles from the Cemetery Lane light which puts it at an economically feasible distance. There is an existing berm between the runway and the site which we are contemplating. There is enough area to store the snow. It would not require snowmelting. The site is not visible from anywhere that the edge of this road could be inexpensively landscaping so that even the people traveling along the road wouldn't see it. We have some security problems with the airport. It is nothing major. It is a question of erecting a proper fence behind that berm. I think that this is one of the great solutions. It doesn't go It is we want come up 22 PZM3.12.91 immediately into one of our important water sheds and pollute it. It is time to stop the oil spill that is causing our problem. Mari: Is it public land? Harry: Yes, it is. It is County land. Actually it is owned by the airport authority. I don't know if they own it. The County owns it and the airport authority runs it. We are looking into all of that stuff. I am trying to get through to the point that it is no longer appropriate to have snow dump on that site. It is inexcusable. It is the equivalent of Aspen's oil spill. Julia Marshall is going to describe the feature of the plan that we have done. We have spent a lot of time on this plan. It is all amateur time except for Alan who has prepared this beautiful document. All of the rest of the work has come from the citizens. This is not some unwieldy citizen out-of-control group. The point is that this is a lot of people who really believe and are trying to do something wonderful. Julia Marshall: What is really great about this park and the development of it is that it integrates art with theatre. It integrates with the Rugby area. There is potential for developing a kayak course along the river. It is also passive uses with walking and people bike riding. It brings together a lot of aspects for people who live in Aspen into one kind of area and continues a link that starts right at the top of the mountain and goes all the way down to the river. When we started on this project we kind of claimed our territory. The first year we built this berm. The tent is right here and we started that and so that is what you saw for the first year. Last year we were lucky enough to work with the We Count Program and they donated the Maple trees at the corner and the Crabapple trees that are along this walkway. They also worked on the treehouse that is in this area. Our objective for this next year is to continue now that this pipeline has come down from the parking garage is now going back to Hallam Lake and all of that water problem is taken care of. We want to continue doing this slope and begin to work our way across here. But before we can do any of that we really need the go-ahead to say that we can attack this territory and really re- grade that slope so that intimacy with the river is felt. Now the property is unofficially raised by a bench about 14 to l5 feet high so we would have no connection with the river when you 23 PZM3.12.91 are down there. But if we were able to re-grade this and put the bike trail through here you would start to feel that connection back to the river. I think that is one of the really important parts of this. It is too full. It is more than too full. Our plan would complete an important link with all of these other activities and it really becomes an integrated green area all the way across. I can't underline how important it is that every time we have our work day we have 200 people out there. You really don't know who people are. But somebody is pushing a wheelbarrow, somebody is shovelling, etc. There were so many people. These pictures right here which show this waterway. This was all done by this one man who worked the whole day and created this wonderful waterfall. That is the whole idea behind this Art Park. Harry: The idea of integrating a structure at this site as Alan has pointed out is not incompatible. This is not a pristine, natural site. It has, in fact, the possibility to be developed into a really effective urban park of the kind that has major cultural facilities on it along with a great natural experience. We have a beautiful river edge. It is certainly not pristine or virgin. It needs to be restored. We have the possibility of integrating the building into that in a way that you don't often have if it were already an untouched site. The other thing--what the building does it has a porch wrapping around it that goes adjacent to this pond that is existing in a way that the tent was. It has an outdoor place here so that people can play outdoors in a protected environment. In the few years that we have already been operating that has come up as programmatic necessity for attracting classical musicians etc so that people can sit on the berm. It has an outdoor sort of aspect to it. It has a minimal traffic link. We obviously will need to be able to get fire trucks down to the facility. But as you notice from the slides again, the road that exists there is not actually low impact right now. What we would propose would be extremely less impact. This portion here is the portion that is for the accommodation of the people that--the players that come for the summer. This shows approximately the percentage of the building that would be used for accommodations--2 levels of accommodations. This is the one level of theatre. It is 150 seat theatre. About 75% of the footprint is taken up by the theatre and 25% not counting the porch which goes around and is an open public area. 24 PZM3.12.91 susie Langenkamp: For 9 years now the Aspen Theatre Company has been sort of persevering and growing against all kinds of odds. We find that we are at a point where we want to go forward. And we want to go forward and do it right the first time around. The Aspen Theatre Company's artistic philosophy is something that governs everything we do. It is behind everything that we do. It states very clearly that our sole purpose of existence is to supply and provide wonderful quality theatre for Aspen residents and visitors to Aspen. We do this without regard to the obvious commercial appeal of productions. This is something that not all theatres can say. We do take chances and we are very proud of the productions that we put on. And also we want to state that the Aspen Theatre Company is a very important part of the cultural landscape in the valley. We are partners and neighbors with the MAA and Dance Aspen. We are very much smaller than they are in terms of budget and audiences. But we too provide a wonderful product for the valley and visitors to Aspen. Being neighbors with the Art Museum is a wonderful bridge that connects us and a wonderful Art Park with sculpture pieces. It just seems a natural thing. Nine years ago our home was the basement of the Jerome Hotel. Their remodel led us to another place which was the basement of the Mine company on the Mall. Then circumstances led us to the tent where we have been for some years. We have outgrown the tent and the "charm" of the tent. A lot of people think it is charming. But a lot of people don't think it is charming. It is too uncomfortable. We can only put on a play with 6 characters or less because of the very limited size of our stage. We can only do a production that has one set. There is just no room to maneuver large pieces around. During a production when our actors are not actually on stage, they have to stand outside in the dark on a dusty snow dump lot because there is no back stage area for actors. It just goes on and on. So having a permanent home for us would deal all sorts of benefits. Carol and I have a problem every Spring in finding talent. The Roaring Fork does not supply us always with the talent we need. If you are an actor you go to where there is work. You are in Chicago, LA, New York. You don't hang around Aspen for a 9 week season. It is just not practical. And we are always looking for actors and also the technical people as well. That is very 25 PZM3.12.91 difficult. And with a year-round facility then we can promote people staying here and then we can go forward with the goal that we have which is to become a resident ensemble theatre. Then we would not be so dependent upon bringing in outside talent. We have looked into all the other spaces in town. Paepcke AUditorium, Wheeler Opera House, the old school house, the high school gym--all sorts of places and none of them are appropriate in the least. In our new site we will actually have bathrooms. That is something we don't have now. We will actually have running water which will be very handy. The lobby is something we will want to use for local artists who might want to come in and put up their art work, for children putting on a performance. We will have a professional light booth and the capability of showing films. We will have for the first time a place to build our sets and store them--a closet where we can put our props and our costumes and all of our possessions will be safe for the first time. At this point we just have a little ring of canvas around everything that we own--all of our assets. And through a very generous grant we have some very state-of-the-art lights and they are just sitting there with canvas wrapped around them and a few trips with Westec driving around doesn't really cut it. The security is a real problem for us and everything we own. So this home that we would have would have all these things. We could have auditions, town meetings, classes--acting classes, directing classes. And of course because we are on City land and we are not the exclusive people in this building--although the primary ones--we would certainly solicit and welcome all kinds of uses for this building. The Museum has expressed an interest in coming in and having guest slide and film shows. The Aspen Writer's Foundation is very interested in our space. We have spoken to the Deaf Camp. We wanted to do a joint project with them in the Summer. They would love that. They would be able to come. So the building is for everyone--all the arts groups that would find it appropriate. In terms of the accommodations, none of us like to speak of them as employee housing. These are accommodations for visi ting artists. These are technical experts. These are directors. These are members of our staff that are essential to a season. And of course they are there when a production is up and during the rehearsal time. We are not always going to be producing plays. 26 PZM3.12.91 The Aspen writer's Foundation is dying for a place to have visiting writers and poets who come year round to do lecture series and classes. The Sunshine Kids are coming to town. There are lots of opportunities for temporary sporadic housing for things that come along in this facility. We don't have to build any parking. We have got it up the hill. We don't need a major road because it is just a service road. So we really would like to insist that it is called accommodations for visiting artists because that is what it would be. This is a place that is much needed in this town. The housing problem, other than money, is our first problem. So we are looking forward to the time when we can have this permanent home right there. We want to be in good company. We want to be on the Art Park premises. We believe in it. It believes in us. We are very happy about this sort of marriage with them. And we really look forward to the day when we can be real quality artistic neighbors and artistic partners with Dance Aspen and MAA and we see no reason why that can't happen. We are little and we want to grow but we don't want to grow in terms of size. We only want to grow in terms of our quest to be very, very professional. Alan: Went through a number of letters from the public in support of this project as follows: Robert Harth, Aspen Theatre Company, Carolyn Diffenbaugh, Gordon Whitmer of The Mother Lode, M. Musgrave-Peters of the Hotel Lenado and the Sardy House, Frederic Benedict, champion of Aspen who did the first SPA Plan for the Rio Grande back in 1977, Fama G. (Missie) Thorne, Deborah Barnekow, Susan Jackson, Director of the Art Museum and Jeffrey J. Bentley of Dance Aspen. (attached in record) To sum up: We are making a garden out of a wasteland. This is not open space. It is a dump. There are a lot of communities that have waterfront opportunities. Most large cities that have waterfront opportunities wouldn't use it as a dump--let alone a mountain community. Crested Butte is a mountain community with a river running right through it. They use that river as it's most pedestrian-oriented focus of downtown. You walk all along that river and there are paths all along it and people use the river. This community doesn't really have a gathering place along the river anywhere. There are places that you can walk along the river obviously. But there isn't a place that people can go and say "I am going to be next to the river and just spend time there". This really creates a destination for people to use that river and to enjoy it. And we have a park and a picnic shelter shown next to the river because that is something that the Parks Dept thinks makes sense. 27 PZM3.12.91 The dump has been a source of complaints not only from this Board but from many neighbors. On the other hand our neighbors have been participants in planning and in working on this site. People like Remo, Skip and Ruth Hamilton who have been participating and they really think this is a great thing. This project connects park, trail, cultural and community uses-- all of the elements of what makes Aspen a wonderful place. It links Herron Park, Jenny Adair Park and the Rio Grande Trail. It links the Art Museum to town and it gives a reason for people to walk to the Art Museum instead of driving there which is exactly what we are all supposed to be doing--encouraging pedestrian usage. with the construction of the Library and the Teen Center, I think we are going to see increasing usage of this area. Harry keeps pointing out to me that people already are down there taking their pictures and walking along the site. But we are going to have a lot more people in that section of town and I don't think the snowmelter is really something consistent with that kind of use. I think we ought to be looking at this as a people place. The Aspen experience--the cultural and sporting tradition--this combines those two elements. consistency with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The staff has noted several aspects of our program such as rehabilitating this parcel, bringing it into a pUblic usage, the re-vegetation that are consistent with the Greenway Plan. The Greenway Plan talks about a greenway stretching from Hunter Creek to the Slaughter House Bridge. That is not where the Art Park is. We are outside of technically what is the Greenway. The Greenway was an area intended to be a natural area. An area that was not disturbed and should be kept not disturbed. The Greenway Plan however recognized that there were urban areas adjacent to the Greenway which could provide a supporting roll to the Greenway. And it talked about those disturbed areas being parks. That is what we are doing. We are taking a disturbed site. To talk about this being open space or natural or having any of those potentials really doesn't make sense. This is an urban park setting and it is a place where facilities are a natural. It is a place to complement the natural side of the Greenway. We support the parking facility investment and transit investments. Patrons can park their car in the parking structure and walk down here. They don't have to drive. We are not going to provide parking. We expect people to use the parking 28 PZM3.12.91 structure. The trolley route will be nearby. nearby. The downtown is nearby. We think location. The buses are it is an ideal Local talent: This one has 2 sides. #1, the theatre is small. It is intended to be kind of a local oriented theatre operation. We are not trying to compete with the Wheeler. This is intended to provide an outlet for the creativity of the Roaring Fork Valley. Not only that but the Art Park itself provides that opportunity for people to get involved in the community and that is something that all of us have been concerned about--that loss of community spirit. Cost: We are not anxious to create a lot of public cost through this project. The concept so far has been to use volunteerism to build and to landscape, to get donations and to create a park and cultural amenity without cost and which will be maintained by volunteers. We don't want to turn this over to the Parks Dept to add to their budget. In terms of public improvements that are mentioned in the memo the water, the sewer, we would expect those to be investment costs that we have to make in creating the building and we understand that. We are proposing to use a building that is going to be built to create housing. I don't view that as adding impact. I view that as taking advantage of an opportunity in exactly the same way that the trolley barn is trying to take advantage of an opportunity. We don't get that many opportunities to create housing on site. I think we ought to take advantage of it. We will submit a budget as part of our final SPA. We will probably want some help from the City in terms of equipment to help us in some of the work along the river and maybe for the paving. But basically this is not a project that we see having public cost. Mari: My first impression is that I am encouraged to see revitalization of public facilities being within walking distance of downtown. It seems that the direction of Aspen in the past 5 years has been to gut all the really prime space because it is worth so much commercially and therefore we only have commercial things in the core and I would like to reverse that trend. And so this looks good to me. I have serious reservations about using City's own public land for the use of visiting artists. The other thing that I will have questions about is what exactly 29 PZM3.12.91 will the ownership structure be for the building which is on City land? Richard: I am in full agreement that the snowmelter has got to go out of town even if the theatre building were not built. I think that should be a park and not a dump. It is too valuable to the community to be pinching pennies on snow removal at the cost of that piece of land. I have some reservations about putting the living quarters on that site. I wonder if it would be possible to work with the trolley people assuming that everything goes forward to use some of the space above their building. Originally the talk was of putting the housing over in this area here anyway. That is just moving it 100ft and get it out of the park area and reduce the size of that building to a minimum. I do think it is appropriate to have a theatre building there but also want to keep it to a minimum in order to reduce the impact on the park and open space. You were talking about starting to rebuild the stream area? Are you planning to do that this Spring? What kind of process do you need to go through to get permission to really get in there and engineer the stream bed and the banks? . Alan: We have been having conversations with Bob Gish and we see the effort going forward essentially co-operatively with the city. If there is a need for any Corp of Engineer's permits that would be the entity that would take charge of those. We have recognized all along that Stream Margin is going to occur at final. So stream Margin kinds of activities aren't likely to happen this Spring. Roger: It seems to me that the biggest impediment in the process is this snowmel ter. Qui te clearly. What can you do with the Stream Margin when you are still faced with the snowmelting or snow storage or dumping operation in that vicinity. I think it could be said that you have the support of the P&Z that we would like to have the snowmelter elsewhere and that has been continually expressed to the city Council. Mari: We have alwavs wanted out of there! Roger: We have alwavs wanted it elsewhere. Mari: If Hal Clark has found a location for the snow dump, we will give him a parade! (Much applause from everyone for this) 30 PZM3.12.91 Roger: But that is an intriguing idea--just jumping to the snowmel ting as part of this. I am interested if there is in effect sufficient room distance from the runway and things like that and is it attainable. Can we get that parcel from the County? A couple of encouraging things is that there would be a lot more natural snowmelting going on there. You wouldn't have to pump a lot of natural gas in to melt the snow which is encouraging. The snow dump as it is now, to the north, is exactly the wrong way to melt snow. That seems to be the key to the timing of this project as far as your being able to go much further is what do we do with the snowmelter? I agree with Richard's reservations about housing at the theatre site. Maybe that can be shifted up to the trolley site. Sara: I think the community park is one of the most exciting things that has happened. Public and community things should go on that land. I was relieved in the presentation that you mentioned it was opened to other entities. I suddenly see that we might be providing sites for Dance Connection. There are several other theatre companies in Aspen. We have been talking about partiality for the first half hour of this meeting. That smacks of partiality to house the Aspen Theatre Company. So it scares me a little bit. We don't want to become landlords. We are landlords of the Wheeler Opera House. But how this building will be managed can't just be the Aspen Theatre Company to me. Bruce: Just to congratulate and applaud the group for their grass roots effort in trying to put this together. My comments that I made earlier about this whole area--on the one hand I applaud them for claiming their piece of Aspen and working to make it better. On the other hand it bothers me a little bit that somebody is staking claim just like the land rush in Oklahoma staking claims on this public land. So I have those same concerns. Mari: We will continue the SPA Review to Tuesday March the 19th beginning with the snowmelter discussion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was / 31