HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910409
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 9. 1991
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce
Kerr, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton
was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: In view of the city Council meeting about our decision
about the bridge last night I think it is very important that we
try and schedule a joint County and City Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting basically to figure out how we are going to
deal with this rather major change in the entrance to town.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
ASPEN MEADOWS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
~.
Amy did a summary as attached in record.
Put a condition on the approval that basically Lots 1, 2 and 3
which are the lots owned by the Music Associates, the Aspen
Institute and the Physics would have to all agree on any changes
to the Masterplan for those properties. It would not apply to
the residential portion of the property. They would still retain
their SPA overlay. There is nothing in the code right now that
requires property owners of those single family homes or the
townhome units to have to agree to an application for development
on the non-profit parcel. So we feel that this resolves 2
things. It would limit the applicant's fears that the new owners
of the condominiums and the single family homes could stop any
change that might be needed in the future to the Meadows property
but it would still give us the comfort that the property that is
known as the non-profit areas would be planned as a whole and
would present only when the 3 non-profit entities agree to come
in together.
"
,
I
Perry: As long as we can with that condition override I think it
1S section 6203 of the code that says that any development
submission can be initiated by more than 50% of the owners of
real property. That is a code requirement in our code. I don't
know whether this can override that.
PZM4.9.91
The intent of what Amy is doing is if the Institutions want to do
something all they have to do is get approval from each other.
They don't have to consult with the residential. How does that
work on the other side?
Amy: There is no provision in the code that requires if you have
an SPA overlay that you get owner approval from all the property
owners.
Perry: No. It simply says that more than 50% of the owners.
Amy: We have interpreted that that it would be 50% of the owners
of the property upon which the development is occurring. So for
example Physics will own their property. If they want to come in
and put a new building on their property they have to get 50% of
the owners of that property to agree. Same thing for the Music
Associates and the Aspen Institute. That is only to initiate
your development application. That doesn't mean that you are
giving your consent to the approval of going to come in and
apply. That is how we have interpreted that section of the code.
Harvey: So you say that the SPA overlay does not require all the
owners of the property--I don't know what the Commission feels
about that but it has always been my understanding that the
purpose of an SPA was that everybody had to get together on the
plan. And I just want to make sure that 5 years from now we are
covered.
Welton: Can you work out the details of your proposal with Perry
to make sure that we know they aren't bogged down.
Amy: Yes. We will bring back that language in a resolution.
Roxanne: I want to summarize HPC's review. The HPC has granted
conceptual development approval with conditions in 3 different
meetings for the Meadows in 3 different portions of the Meadows.
The residential, the academic and now the music portion.
The conditions of the conceptual approval are relatively standard
for the residential and the academic portions. The rehearsal
hall conditions are the exception to that.
Roxanne: It is important to understand that the HPC's review was
based on compatibility issues--historic and cultural resources.
With regard to the rehearsal hall the tent was considered the
utmost important resource to protect in terms of design and
potential impact of the rehearsal hall. The design modifications
as required for the rehearsal hall are considered critical. The
second motion was made last night that recommended that P&Z and
Council may wish to reconsider re-Iocating the rehearsal hall to
2
PZM4.9.91
the west
and the
hearings
side of the tent in
response that was
that were held.
light of the strong public comment
received at the numerous public
Don Erdman, Chairman of the subcommittee for HPC: The HPC was
acting as to the impact of the structure to the tent. In the
view of the majority we found no fault there. We dealt with
structure on the site, the impact of the structure to the music
tent and to the views from the tent. The consensus was that of
these two the impacts would--we did not find fault with the site
in particular.
Roxanne: Presented letters from: Larry Aldrich, Chairman,
Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, Carl R. and Katie Bergman,
Jessica Catto, Janet Dossigny, Rosemary and Richard Furman,
Albert Glickman, Harriet Gold, Sam and Heidi Houston, Edward and
Ann F. Hudson, Bruce Konheim, Sharon & Frank Lorenzo, Paul C.
Schorr, III, and Maurice B. Tobin all in favor of the western
location for the rehearsal facility. (all attached in record)
SCORING
Welton: I know that every member of the Commission has reviewed
the Planning Office scoring. I have reviewed it and I would have
scored the application the same as the Planning Office. We have
2 options now. We can be handed out the score sheets and score
the whole project or we can say as individuals that we would
score the same as the Planning Office.
Does anybody have any problem with that second option?
Roger: If we can take a look at the roads and get that squared
away before the scoring then I may have no problems at all with
the scoring.
Welton: The next item we are going to be talking about are road
issues. If it is not going to change the overall outcome--in
other words that there is enough points to be granted an
allotment then there is no point in re-arranging schedule.
Roger: That is putting the cart before the horse.
Amy: It is important that you score the project based on what
was submitted in the application.
Welton: You can only score on what is submitted. You cannot
score based on any changes made during the process. That is
impossible.
Roger: Then I have a problem with the Planning Office scoring.
3
PZM4.9.91
Welton: I would urge you to reconsider and join vote everyone
else in voting unanimously to affirm that the scores you would
have given would consent with the Planning Office scores. The
SPA process still gives you as much if not more clout to layout
the road design at that 7th st intersection. It gives you more
clout than at GMQS competition because you can't change a GMQS
scoring. You can change it later as part of the SPA but right
now you can't change anything.
Roger: My only problem is--OK if I can't change it right now
then some of the scores are wrong. I still don't have a problem
being the only one voting against it.
Amy: Roger, procedurally that would not work.
Harvey: Roger, in reality what good does a GMQS allotment on a
residential do me if I don't have an SPA?
Welton: It won't work unless it is unanimous. It can't change.
Jasmine: It
presented. We
in fact that
submitted.
can't change. We have to vote on what was
can't vote on what we would like to happen even if
is going to happen because that is not what is
Welton: You can accomplish what you want to accomplish in a
proper venue through SPA. It cannot be done through GMQS.
Roger: As it is submitted there is a major flaw in it.
Welton: It can remedied through SPA but not through GMQS.
Roger: But I am to agree with this grading with a major flaw in
it whereas if I know that that major flaw is going to be taken
care of I could have a much easier time voting for it.
Wel ton: The question has been called on GMQS.
public comment on GMQS exemption.
Is there any
There was no public comment.
Amy: At the last meeting the Planning Commission raised some
concern over the design of the road entering the Meadows property
as the road comes off the existing 7th st, how it would intersect
with existing North st and what the turning radius would be at
that point as well as preservation of some of the trees that are
existing there and how that relates with the grading.
4
PZM4.9.91
There was a meeting between that meeting and this meeting with
the applicant and Roger and the traffic consultant. We have a
couple of other issues that have come up at staff level with
respect with roads. The first one is that the road was proposed
to come into the Meadows property at 7th st and be a private road
from that point on.
The Planning Office is now recommending that that be public for
several reasons. We want to always ensure that the road along
the existing Meadows Rd have public access to their properties.
And even though they would be granted easements to that private
road, our codes are such that the City is bound to give property
owners public access to their property and if for some reason
that road was closed off in the future then we would potentially
need to re-open existing Meadows Rd which we are closing to turn
into a trail. And we don't want to see that happen so we are
proposing that that be a public road till it reaches the parking
garage portion of the property.
In addition
snowplowing
applicant and
final plat.
we wanted to ensure that any maintenance
responsibilities were worked out between
the City for both portions of the road prior to
and
the
the
Roger: I did meet with Perry Harvey and A. J. this morning.
Basically the applicant was I think operating on two primary
criteria for determining where this road goes here. One criteria
from their point of view was dictated on absolutely minimizing
the loss of trees and in the face of the 7th st they absolutely
minimized it because there are no trees where they are putting
the road.
The other operative feature is in the Aspen code it is desirable
to have 90 degree intersections. So they have met both of those
criteria with the approach. My concern with this was that all of
a sudden Meadows Rd became an extension of North st as opposed to
an extension of 7th st. And I really wasn't convinced that their
way of dealing with it which was having a 3-way stop was the way
to accomplish the flow of traffic. 3-way stops don't do anything
for flow. There is a problem with this clump of trees on this
inside corner.
A.J. We are talking about 5 trees at about 12' height. What
Roger is proposing is to make this intersection, this portion of
the asphalt wider and also indent it a little more this way to
give the feeling that when you come around this curve that you
should turn to the right. That is his concern that traffic will
essentially go straight down North st.
5
PZM4.9.91
Roger: Also what is not shown here is by cutting this we do have
room to lessen this reverse curve so it tends to direct more
towards 7th st.
Amy: The Planning Office has not had a chance to review this.
We are concerned about minimizing the numbers of trees that are
cut down so there may be a conflict.
Roger: I understand that. But we have to look at this and
somewhere someone is going to have to come up with the idea--I
don't know whether it is the west end property owners as to what
is more beneficial. Having traffic filtering through North st in
the west end or trees which could either be moved or replanted
elsewhere in the whole configuration. Trees will re-grow in 20
years. Asphalt doesn't move in 20 years.
A.J.: What Roger is saying is he wants to widen out this portion
of the asphalt and make this less of a T intersection so that
tourists or drivers would tend to go to the right rather than
straight down North st. And that would involve cutting a portion
of these trees here and re-configuring the asphalt.
It was determined that the trees are too big to be moved.
A.J.: This intersection as well as the 8th st intersection was
reviewed by a traffic engineer in Denver. His feeling is that
this intersection could be managed properly by making 3-way stop
here and proper signage. Now that is not going to guarantee
traffic from going up North st but at least give them a chance to
stop and know where they are.
Welton: So it would be to our advantage to-if trees are going to
be lost--to lose them here and keep them here.
A.J.: That is right.
Roger: Very definitely.
A.J.: What you could do is take out these and widen the
intersection similar to what Roger had in mind and replant some
trees in this area.
Collins: A question on this survey. The property lines in that
area--no place either on the maps or in the field has it been
staked out to a degree where you knew on whose property you might
be. And I think that is a requirement of a subdivision plat.
Welton:
roadway
doesn't
According to these surveys this proposed change in
happens all within the City property on City ROW.
come anywhere close to any private property.
the
It
6
PZM4.9.91
Harvey: It is all within the North st ROW.
Welton: Are there any questions from the public on this road
access question? This is a continued public hearing.
John Doremus: I live within a block of this intersection. It
certainly makes sense to me, having watched the traffic into
there for 15 years that a gentle curve rather than that hard left
would make a great deal more sense. It is my feeling that you
want to make the alignment that makes the most sense the easiest
alignment for the street that is going to carry the most traffic
and not have it interrupted by stop signs. That is the alignment
that is going to carryall the trucks to the Meadows and that is
the one you would want to make the most easy curves and not have
any stop signs.
So I certainly think Roger has pointed out a flaw in the plan and
planting a few trees--the area has a ton of trees and as much as
we all think about trees we can manage with cutting 4 or 5 trees.
Don Swales: I live about 4 blocks from this intersection. I
think Roger has a definite point. I think the idea was to keep
everything on 7th Ave and not encourage any turnoffs anyplace to
the west side. And the more we can encourage everybody to stay
on 7th from Main st is the way to go.
There were no further public comments and Welton closed this part
of the hearing.
A.J. What we can do is revise our design of this intersection
and submit it to the Planning Office.
Roger: Another treatment--there is this spot down here which I
think would work where there is a double tree and a smaller tree
where we could bring it in not quite a 90 but almost a 90 degree
which I think works a lot better as far as this double curvature.
Amy: Regardless of how you do it if people want to turn on North
st, they will turn on North st regardless of how wide the
pavement is. That is our determination.
Roger: I wish this meeting today didn't come quite so late that
I didn't have the opportunity to talk with he Planning Office. I
think I can convince the Planning Office that there is a better
way of doing this. I wish the Planning Office would not be set
in cement or in asphalt at this point concerning these roads.
Can we get together and get this thing straightened out? As far
as I am concerned the way it is set up right now is a disaster.
7
PZM4.9.91
For example, you are talking a 2-way stop here. That means all
of the service trucks have to come to a stop and accelerate
around the left turn where there are residences right here, right
here and in the future over there. That will be a most
unpleasant experience. So I hope the planning Office will keep
an open mind and will look more into this.
Welton: A.J., is the tree removal a significant difference
between the proposed intersection and what Roger is proposing?
A.J. : The way it is designed right now we are cutting down
probably 1 10 or 12 inch tree. Reconfiguring it or moving it
down south, we are probably cutting down 2 smaller ones. Trees
were a major criteria in the design of this.
Welton: Does anybody on the commission have any objection to
Roger's re-design of the roads?
Harvey: I just wanted to state here in response to--we had
proposed this to be a private road with a public access easement.
The reason being that in the city code there was a requirement
for at least a 60 and probably a 75 ft ROW. Through the proposed
variations in the subdivision regulations we can handle the
reduced ROWand still give it over as a City street.
We don't have a problem with that. We would like to see the
speed control. We would like to see no parking. Those issues
will enable the pavement width to be kept at a minimum. So I
don't think we have specific problem with that. And the old
Meadows ROW should be retained by the city and then the City can
give easements to those residences.
Amy: We are proposing 2 conditions that are related to the road
issue. The first is to 2 weeks prior to the city Council hearing
that we receive detailed design for the new Meadows Rd and any
changes that are made by the Planning Commission should be
incorporated into those design lines and those are to be approved
by the City's Engineer's Office.
Second is that the speed limit on the new Meadows Rd be
to safety standards as required by the City Engineer.
thinking 25 mph.
reduced
We were
Chuck Roth, Engineer: That would relate to these curvatures.
Amy: We agree that there be no parking along the side of the
road so we can add that as a condition.
Harvey: The other thing is you had said "Up to the entrance to
the parking garage". I think what we should do is take it to
8
PZM4.9.91
this western property line and from there on once you are really
internal to the site it will be a private road.
Amy: That is fine.
#3 that the old Meadows Rd ROW be retained by the city and it's
use be changed to a public trail.
#4 is that the 2 lots of the 4 single family homes on the end--
Lot 10 and Lot 7 that the driveways of the block be limited to
interior house and lot and that is to avoid any safety conflicts
between the driveways and the entries to the Meadows area.
#5 is that it be a public local road and we can change the
language to ensure that it goes up to the west end of that
property line.
Bruce: I don't share Roger's concerns about the roads and
streets. I think it can be accomplished with signage and perhaps
something as simple as a sign that says "Right turn only" when
you come out of Meadows Rd.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve the road layout as
revised in the meeting tonight with the 5 conditions in the
Planning Office memo dated April 9, 1991. (attached in record)
Roger: I will so move and also that it come back in resolution
form from the Planning Office.
Sara seconded the motion.
Richard: I am going to vote against this. I voted against it in
the original form also because I think this whole road design is
a travesty. We have gone beyond NIMBY to stick it in vour back
yard. And I think bring it over into the west end only moves it
away from a few houses which are already a considerable distance
away from the road and puts it very close to the houses and the
church and the Forest Service on 7th st where there is very
little setback between the houses and the road. And if there is
constant 2-way traffic on that road there will be no parking on
the street for the people who live in the neighborhood. As I see
pedestrian patterns developing, music students coming from the
Marolt property down 7th st and over to the tent the conflict
between the pedestrians and the traffic, there is no room for
sidewalks on 7th st. I think the whole thing is sheer nonsense.
And that is where I stand on it.
9
PZM4.9.91
Jasmine: To a certain extent I agree with Bruce's comments.
There is nothing in the conditions that mentions re-vegetation or
replanting of trees. And I would like to see that included in
the conditions.
Harvey: We have been dealing with the Parks Dept and what we are
coming down to is an agreement to replace not only on tree for
tree but caliper inch for caliper inch throughout the property.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Richard.
TENT EXPANSION, PARKING LOT AND REHEARSAL HALL
Harry Teague, Architect:
presented to you before.
of the issues--primarily
Quite a bit has happened since what we
And so I would like to go through some
the site of the building.
We have been directed by you and the city Council to make a site
definitely on the east side. And we proposed to you on our
original application there were both sites--the west side and the
east side were proposed and we were given direction to develop
the east side and that is where we are now.
In a work session with the HPC we went out to the site and
discussed it's possible locations and from a preliminary go-
through with them we decided that the site would be best shifted
slightly more towards the south and this is the version that
represents that. The building itself is basically a spherical
mound with a white plainer surface resting on the grass on the
mound that in fact directly radiates from the center point of the
tent.
At the highest point it is 30 feet and at it's lowest point it is
about 11 feet off the ground. So the side that is coming towards
the tent is 11 feet off the ground. That surface is made up
primarily of glass doors that roll up so that the lobby of this
facility can be used as a sort of shelter for the intermission at
the tent when there are rain storms etc.
The other aspect of it is the adjacency of this building to the
tent is such that the area in between can be used as outdoor area
in between and can be used as an expanded space for what is now
overcrowded outdoor space for the tent during intermission.
The HPC has given us a requirement to move the building more to
the north on this site. So in response to that we have
developed--there are 2 major things. One--Iower the site. The
primary height of it at least 5 feet. And the other one is to
move it to the north of the site.
10
PZM4.9.91
We intend to retain the integrity of the mound connected with the
Anderson Ranch sculpture park and various other formal sculptural
aspects that we are dealing with. So we have kept the spherical
shape but cut it off along the side of the road with a steeper
angle. All the rest of this berm here is a very shallow angle.
The other issue that has come up that is important is the effect
of the facility and the seating around the tent. What we have
done is taken this facility and moved it over into the quadrant
here. So we have kept the same distance from the tent. By
increasing the seating on the west side of the tent we are
actually going to get about 50% more seating with the new
configuration.
We are introducing berms around the tent--those go all the way
around the tent. We are moving the path to be further away. On
the west side it has just come to light that we have an agreement
from the Aspen Institute that that path might even move on the
other side of some existing trees so that the area between that
path and the tent on the west side would all be available for
outdoor seating. At the present time there is a paved path that
bisects that.
By moving this facility over on this angle here approximately 50%
of the seating on the east side is not affected at all by the
facility in any way. We might put a paved path that connects the
courtyard in front of the new facility with the existing
courtyard. It gets impacted with so much use that it requires to
be paved.
By moving it over to this area it becomes unimpacted. The area
that is remaining in between this facility and that facility--
portions of it would be paved as an outdoor courtyard so that
during intermissions, people can flow right onto it. Grass is
not going to be able to take that. We would have benches around
trees that would be used for outdoor seating in that area.
Jasmine: In the plan the new facility is going to seat how many?
Teague: 500 seats.
Jasmine: And then the tent itself is going to be expanded.
Teague: To 2,000 seats but they will never have performances at
the same time.
Amy: The tent was actually allowed to be expanded through the
masterplanning process. However it is my understanding that the
MAA is just going to reconfigure the seating inside the tent to
11
PZM4.9.91
get more efficient use out of the seating in the tent and not
actually expand the tent.
Teague: The structure itself will stay the same. We are doing a
backstage expansion of 200sqft. But that is not for the seating.
Jasmine: So 2,000 seats for the tent and 500 seats for the new
facility.
Teague: Yes.
Welton: This is a continuation of a public hearing. We will now
take public comment on this part of the hearing.
Leonard Lauder: I have a house on Roaring Fork Road which is
right across the street and I am also on the Board of Trustees
for the Aspen Institute. So I have been very much a part of the
process on both sides. And although this probably seems a case
of NIMBY because I am across the street I can't see the tent from
my property because of the configuration of my land. So that
although, yes, it is in my back yard I can't see it.
But I feel very strongly about the location and I have been a
very strong advocate of putting it on the west side rather than
on the east side for the following reasons:
Firstly if the rehearsal facility were to go on the east side as
currently planned that would totally obliterate the music tent.
You would see it sort of peeking behind the rehearsal facility.
The music tent today is one of the great icons of Aspen. And we
would lose that. Instead we would see a huge berm with a little
roof sticking up on top of it.
secondly, the view to Independence Pass and the view of that
whole area would indeed be lost. I know you can see it if you
sit and look in one direction. But for those of you who have
children as I have children and have brought them up as I did on
the lawn and see them running around and see them have the big
beautiful lawn, that would be lost to you. All you would have is
a little corridor that you would huddle behind the refreshment
stand looking out at a little corridor out to Independence Pass.
Yes, Harry, we would see Independence Pass but you would have to
look very, very carefully to see it.
Thirdly, the trees. Yes, you can plant 22 inch caliper trees but
those trees were planted 40 years ago by Walter Paepcke. We
would lose the shade, remove everyone to the hot west side. It
would be another 40 years before those trees would grow in and
give you the same shade and coolness that you have now.
12
PZM4.9.91
In summary I think it should go on the west side and may I remind
us all that we are just trustees of the future. You can't give
away the view and give away that lawn and give away one of
Aspen's great amenities and then after it is allover say "Maybe
we made a mistake". Once the genie is out of the bottle, you
can't put it back in again.
Ron Austin: I represent a group of citizens who live in the area
of the Music Associates--a group that calls itself "Friends of
the Lawn". It is interesting--have all of you been out to see
the staking? I think that is critical. If you haven't, you need
to see it before you make any definite decisions.
I attended the last 2 HPC meetings. And they total 6 and 1/2
hours. And the reason is because of all the public input. And
while I think Don Erdman correctly stated his view of what
happened yesterday I think that some of the other committee
members were so concerned by the public input of wanting this on
the west that is why they passed the additional motion to call
your attention to it.
The fact that this new structure on the east side would totally
influence your view as you enter traditionally to the tent from
the 3rd and Gillespie or the Gillespie side that it would totally
overshadow the tent is a very important fact. And if you have
been out there and looked on the west, you can see that that
would not impact anyone. There would be no impact to any of the
neighbors. And there would be no impact on people coming to the
concerts.
There would be a beautiful building and we all agree Harry has
done a great job of designing the building. But that beautiful
building should be on the west where it would not totally
influence and overpower the tent. And there are arguments that
that is a pristine meadow on the west. Well, I submit this is
also a pristine meadow here. You have Sage just like the Meadow
on the west. And so although both sites were in the masterplan
and although the applicant was directed to go ahead and site it
on the east that should not be the end of it. You should listen
to the people here and think to yourselves "Why put this facility
on the east where it obviously impacts a lot of people rather
than putting it on the west where it does not.
The only impact on the west is from Paepcke Auditorium.
think you should ask yourselves that question and
reconsider this siting.
And so I
seriously
Bill Martin: I concur with these gentlemen wholeheartedly. I
suggest you take this photograph and have the architect put the
13
PZM4.9.91
mound and we will actually see how many people we are going to be
eliminating and what kind of view we are eliminating.
Evelyn Lauder: I would like to point out to you that the wind
comes from the west especially in the summer. And as such the
opportunity to hear well is on the east side of the tent. If the
outdoor population would be shifted to the west side of the tent
not only would they be sitting in the sun but they would also
have less opportunity to hear as well as they might if they were
sitting down wind.
Glen Rappaport: I am on the HPC and I was at the meeting last
night. We obviously wrestled with the pros and cons of both
sites. And as Harry pointed out I think there are a lot of
arguments for the western side as well as the eastern site. I
would like to point out a couple of things.
One is that what Harry has done here since we have seen the
project has really re-enforced I believe the majority of the
members of the HPC's feelings for leaving it on the eastern site.
I think anyone that has been out there and understands that the
eastern--that area of the eastern site is in the worst repair of
any of the Meadow's grounds and it makes sense from a planning
point of view to put a building on that portion of the site in
order to fix that situation and also what--there are a number of
functional things that happen also that I believe by putting the
building there it does allow all the services to be consolidated
in a way that I think opens up the site even more for the
enjoyment of the people that are going to be there.
As you know now the dumpsters and all of that area are situated--
if you look at the upper drawing there on the upper left hand
side--really kind of right in the middle of where the flow is
between Paepcke Auditorium and the tent. So this proposal here
would lend itself towards consolidating all of those services on
that northeastern portion which I believe would have a very
positive impact on the whole experience there. Also what Harry
has done has preserved really the quality of open space that is
used by the people that are sitting outside enjoying the music.
And I don't think there are very many people that are much
farther over in that northern end and even so there is a small
piece of the berm there that comes down and provides seating. I
think it would have the opposite effect. From a historic
standpoint this plan preserves the most quality of open space.
It preserves all the space on the west and what we perceive as
being the primary quality open space on the eastern side. I
think it does allow for a lot of those options to remain open
instead of sealing them off.
..-'
14
PZM4.9.91
Anne Turnbull: I have gotten these experiences for 16 years and
I think I am saddened when I keep hearing about the berms that
are going to be encircling the tent. It really cuts the freedom
for those of us who like to either sit out perhaps the second
half of the concert. We don't have choice whether we can just
put a blanket down and lie back down flat on the ground. Berms
have an angle to them. It sounds like all of this is going to be
like a municipal area. That is what I think of berms in urban
areas. So why mess with the tent? You see pictures. You see
post cards. People love this area. They enjoy it because it is
the freedom that they have to come out and relax and they don't
have to conform to berms and those kind of seatings.
One of the major arguments for having this on the east side is so
that the building can be serviced. What about human beings who
are already using this and they have found a way to service
themselves with beauty and total enjoyment. And if we can send
men to the moon and get them back safely I am sure there is a way
to service the building that is put on the west side. So I don't
think that servicing this building is the primary argument.
Please look at what could happen on the west side. I ask you all
to go over and see stakes and what it looks like on the east
side. It will just take up the whole area.
~.
Lily Garfield: Why change something that has been a tradition
truly as a community and to the locals here in Aspen? I
understand the Music Associates does need something for a
rehearsal hall. But I think there are other alternatives where
to place it. Why change something that is a traditional part of
Aspen? It is also a traditional part for the children as they
use part of that area for the summer music concerts.
Donelly Erdman: There has been a lot of discussion asking you to
go look at the stakes. I am sure you have done so already.
However as we know by listening to Harry and the reaction to the
HPC recommendations yesterday, the stakes are no longer relevant.
So if people are going to go look at the stakes I hope that the
stakes will be moved to where Harry has proposed. The relocation
is a very significant one. He has done a lot of things that
should calm the fears of people.
First of all it has opened up the views both from the tent and
also the experience of walking to the tent from the parking lot
or from Gillespie st. The proposed location of Harry's does not
block any of that experience. That is very important. The other
thing is the views from the tent or from the seating area now are
not blocked. What you will see is the tent is really oriented
more toward Pitkin Green and that portion of Red Mountain. So a
.". lot of complaints I think were prepared prior to Harry responding
) to HPC recommendations yesterday and are no longer valid.
.,/
15
PZM4.9.91
? Turley?: My recollection of the tent is seeing the big tent in
the meadow. I believe that if you put this rehearsal structure
in there you are going to take that experience away, #1. #2, I
almost feel like you are creating an urban environment. You are
creating walls. You are creating places to sit on, berms. It is
going to be a tunnel. It is going to be a cave. It is going to
be a canyon. That isn't what people come here to see. They want
to see the sky. They want to see Independence Pass. I think you
are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. I think you
ought to move it over to the other side. Everybody is talking
about mitigating this thing when the real answer is if you move
it over to the other side on the west side, the whole thing opens
up again. Everybody likes it. Here you have got a big conflict
going on because I think you are trying to jam something in on
the east side that doesn't work.
Sy Coleman: Look, one of the arguments about the west side--one
of the reasons that the east side was not to be more favorable is
that the Physics Institute is on the west side and they have been
very concerned about their circle of serenity. They really need
that. They deal with very difficult intellectual decisions and
they don't need distractions. That is an important issue.
Also the issue as to whether it is better to berm or not to berm.
I think about how I feel listening to music and whether I like my
blanket to be flat on the ground or tilted a bit. Actually I find
it more pleasing to hear the music kind of at an incline with my
head a little higher.
Carl Bergman: I would like to introduce one other word here that
I don't think I have heard yet. Just the word called "charm". A
long time ago when we first moved here somebody said "You know,
carl, I really hope that all you people who live here will really
always retain the charm of Aspen". At one time we had neon
lights here. We finally got rid of those and we could go on and
on. Seemingly though as many solutions that we come up with,
there is always competition for someone to come right around and
wreck it again. When you park your car, when you walk on the
gravel walk. When you see other people. That is when I really
feel that is the major implements of the charm of Aspen. And by
putting this music rehearsal facility on the east side really
scuffs on that charm.
Eric Calderon: I just want to underscore Mrs. Lauder's comment.
It is nice to be able to look at the views but I think it is more
important to be able to hear properly. And as one who likes to
sit outside in the summer, I appreciate sitting on the side where
the wind is coming from so I can hear better. I think that would
16
PZM4.9.91
be lost if I was forced to sit on the opposite side so I hope
that they keep the rehearsal hall on the western side.
Ron Austin: One other thing. Remember the applicant is neutral.
They have said they don't care which side it is put on. So all
of this public comment is for siting it on the west and the Music
Associates doesn't care. So I think that is an important fact to
consider.
George Vicenzi: I think one of the problems here is the square
peg. I think the mound is also a major factor here. If that
mound could be reduced maybe another 3 or 4 feet I think you
would have not quite as square fit as now.
Bill Martin: I just have a question on procedure. It appears to
me that we have not discussed the west site. HPC has not
discussed the west site. You haven't discussed the west site.
But we are still on the east site. And I just don't understand
that. There is something wrong with the administration of the
process.
Welton: Well, when this came to P&Z at conceptual level my
recollection was that both sides were presented and there was
some sort of impetus to make a tentative decision, and I
underline the word tentative decision, at that time. There
wasn't a whole lot of discussion. There wasn't a whole lot of
presentation from Harry because Harry didn't have a building
designed. There was a bubble on one side and a bubble on the
other side.
Harry: There was a building designed. And in fact it was shown
on the west side. The original application showed a bubble on
both sides and there were drawings of the building showing it on
the west side.
Welton: My recollection was that the choice of the east side was
more of a gut reaction to limited amount of information and it
was based largely on the feeling that servicing the building
would be easier on the east side rather than on the west side.
And that was largely the reason why the east side was given as a
direction to the applicant.
In seeing more detailed drawings of the building on the east side
my feeling is that there is way too much paving in front of this
new building that replaces grassy seating area. That maybe if
the building were rotated, and this is just another gut feeling,
90 degrees to the plaza in front of the rehearsal hall fixed the
same direction as the plaza in front of the tent and you had more
berm coming down facing the tent that that might be a solution
worth exploring.
17
PZM4.9.91
But I guess basically I have come 180 degrees over to the other
side of the tent since our earlier discussions some 6 months ago.
And that internalizing this rehearsal facility to a less
conspicuous portion of the property on the west side and leaving
that meadow where the children run around and generally disrupt
anybody trying to listen to music and leaving those nice trees
that you can, if you get there early enough, you can find some
shade during the concert and so that you can hear the music as
the wind pushes it from west to east, I am really opposed to
chopping up that little triangle of land on the east side of the
tent. And I think the west side is a much preferable location.
Darline Anderson: Is there no possibility of putting it under
the parking lot or to the north in any way or does the Institute
permit that as a consideration?
The decision was that there could be no response to this
question.
?: I live on Willoughby Way. I do face this proposal. I feel
that there is too much gut feeling in this town and not enough
sensible feeling. There is nothing sanctious about the west side
meadows. And I think if you have any aesthetic ability at all
you will see that pushing it all into this little space makes no
sense from anyone's point of view when you have all of this space
that always seems to impact the Physics Institute. They are
lovely people but maybe they should move to Redstone.
Sy Coleman: The Physics Institute is an institution in this
community that is world renown. It has nobel prize people doing
their actual work there and they need the quite.
Welton: Harry, is there going to be noise coming out of this
rehearsal facility or is it going to have doors closed when they
have performances?
Harry: It is the opposite. It is designed to be silent. It is
buried underground. It is designed for recording as well as a
noise criteria. There will be no noise coming out or into it.
Jan Collins: I have been sitting here listening at least 10
meetings as to where this facility should be. It should be under
the ground. It should be to the east. It should be to the
north. It should be behind the seminar. It should be to the
west. And I think what it is telling is that this facility has a
problem in and of itself. That this facility up against this
tent--our magnificent tent--is a problem.
18
PZM4.9.91
It is looking like the great hall as Perry has described it
yesterday. The great hall with the wedding tent is what we are
going to have. The wedding tent--the flimsy tent up against this
massive structure. Vehement out there. And I think what we have
seen here is a community that is floundering with this facility.
Where should we put this? Where can we hide it and still give
them the facility that they say they need?
Welton asked if there was anyone who wanted to address the
parking lot for the expansion of the tent. The public portion of
the rehearsal hall hearing is closed.
Harvey: If I could remind the Commission as Harry said that that
submission was made on the west at the masterplan had both sites.
The Planning Office said very strongly that they recommended the
facility go on the east for a number of reasons. Among them was
the fact that service coming in from this parking lot was much
better than service in conflict with the pedestrian walks from
the Institute into the tent and from Paepcke.
Welton: All of those pedestrian walks seems to double as service
drives anyway.
Harvey: Well, no. certainly not these. There is a current area
back here that is service area for the tent. But this walkway
that comes around there and when you come out at Paepcke and you
walk through to there and that would be moved over here. Another
element was being on this side would help shelter the tent from
traffic noise from the only road that impacts it which is Roaring
Fork Drive.
The other consideration was the Physics Center and what happened
was the applicants were neutral. The Planning staff recommended
the east. P&Z went with the east. Council went with the east.
And the conceptual approval came back and this at some point has
got to stop moving. If there is a condition or an issue
regarding the amount of paving, Welton, I think that is well
taken. But certainly there was discussion of both of these sites
not only--the Masterplan said either/or.
One of Council's major concerns was that the property be planned
from an internal perspective. I think you are hearing a lot of
comments about what does it look like when you are outside the
property. They looked at what does it look like when you are in
the property. It is why the development was placed on the
exterior edges of the property. The race track. What is called
the sage meadow here. These were the areas that were considered
to be the most important and the experience was looked at from
internal to the property and what was it like. So in your
consideration put yourself into the property as you move through
19
PZM4.9.91
it and as you consider it and as you consider the users and of
course the circle of serenity was a major consideration. But
there was a conscious decision to place the development on the
external fringes.
Jasmine: I think the last lady that spoke was voicing some of my
concerns about the facility to begin with which is that I had a
problem with it regardless of whether it is west or east. You
call it a rehearsal hall but in fact it is a performance hall
which will seat 500 people. Spectators, critics or what have you
in addition to the people who are performing.
That I think is a significant impact. We have also been told
that they will not be performing or there will not be
performances in this rehearsal hall at the same time as in the
tent. We have even gone so far as to include that as a condition
of approval but that is a totally unenforceable condition and a
totally unrealistic one.
We have a possibility of having 2,500 people converging on this
site at the same time and there is no way that we can prevent it.
I think this is a tremendous impact on the neighborhood that has
not been anticipated. Part of the problem I think that we have
with the site is that maybe this whole particular area is not
appropriate for a facility of this size--l1,000sqft and 500
seats. And whether you put it on the west or the east it is
going to cause problems. I am very concerned about the size of
this. I think that Harry has done a very good job of trying to
minimize it in terms of the external appearance and having it
blend within the landscape but it is just too big to be on this
particular piece of property whether it is on the west or on the
east.
Richard: I think the applicant has done a wonderful job of
calling this a rehearsal facility. I am looking at the schedule
of it's use and it has the same type of use as the tent,
approximately the same number of rehearsals and the same number
of performances but presumably a smaller audience. We need to
deal with it on that basis and stop calling it a rehearsal hall.
It is a rehearsal/performance and recording facility. It also
could be used in the winter time which is another whole issue
that we haven't finalized yet. Parking and traffic in the winter
time.
The siting has gone the bit of a straw man which has drawn our
attention away from looking at the facility itself. And I am
glad Jasmine started that discussion. The whole issue of having
performances at different times increases the traffic in and out
of the area which is a much greater impact on the Physics Center
20
PZM4.9.91
which is very close to the parking lot and almost equal distance
from the 2 sites whether it is on the west side or on the east
side.
As far as the use of the facility goes I think there are
important financial considerations that have not been brought to
our attention. That we have an expansion of the tent plus a new
hall seating 500 people. There is a possibility for much greater
number of performances playing to the same number of people. And
I hope that the MAA is looking at this in a realistic financial
manner and isn't going to come back to us saying we need to do
something else by charging admission to sit on the lawn or to
cover their increased upgrading costs.
So I favor the west site over the east. I think the difficulty
of service access is a miner price to pay for keeping the east
lawn open, keeping the sidewalk out of here we could have people
coming out of this facility during the middle of concerts and
walking in front of the people that are sitting in this area. I
think there is a considerable conflict there for going into
something whether performance rehearsal that is starting
immediately after an event in the tent. I think that would be
handled better on the west side or the walk that goes behind the
seating area rather through the middle of it. So I definitely
favor the west side but I think we need to discuss further the
use and the size of the facility itself.
Welton: We have only got one more meeting to do that. I think
that one of the things that disturbs me is this access trench in
this location that I don't think has any real relationship to the
east side or the west side. It seems to come from the parking
lot and become a trench so that you can get down to the very
lower level.
Harry: It is on the level. It does have walls on either side as
it 1S cut into the mound. And the idea is to obscure the
vehicles and so on that will require access to the back side of
the building. The only place that is perceivable is from the
parking lot.
Welton: It seems to act as a barrier if you are on the berm.
Roger: My attitude about this is first of all I haven't heard
anything terribly new over what we have heard already when we
first looked at this. As far as I am concerned that decision was
made primarily I think through the city Council's masterplanning
process. From strictly a service point of view I think the east
is the better location. And I am unwilling to change that
without the city council deciding to go back to the whole issue
and revisiting the thing and changing their position on it.
21
PZM4.9.91
I think it is grossly unfair when the opportunity was through the
first conceptual process to try and iron out a major thing like
this to say all of a sudden now because more people are against
the eastern position than the western position we can throw it
back to the west. So that is where I am staying. I would not
vote to change it back to the western location at this time. If
that vote should occur, it should occur at the Council level.
Sara: I am all for this rehearsal/performance hall. I think if
we want to maintain the soft structure which we have asked the
MAA we want the tent to remain we need to also allow them to have
something that they need.
We have to allow them to have a hard structure. Certainly we
love having our children and dogs running around in the meadows
but it is music. That is the first thing. picnics I
was there yesterday walking around. I love looking at Buttermilk
and looking out to Highlands. If you put that thing on the west
side, there you have a walled campus. I really think you have
congested buildings. I think you have to think hard about what
we are doing to the interior. We were looking at it from an
interior point of view. That tent, if we want it to stay, we
have to allow this facility. I think Harry has done a great job.
Bruce: I somewhat agree with Roger that we sort of have a hidden
applicant here. And that is the city Council. They have put
this masterplan together so I think we are somewhat stuck with an
applicant who is not represented here. I don't think it makes a
whole lot of difference what my preference is as to where the
rehearsal hall will be located.
I can vote this either way because I think HPC has done a good
job trying to mitigate having it to the east side. As a former
lawyer I could argue ei ther side pretty easily. It really
doesn't matter what I personally feel about it. Whether I would
prefer to have it in the back or in my face is sort of irrelevant
what I personally prefer. From a planning standpoint given the
concept that we have them to work within and that is working from
the inside out and from the facility's standpoint the east side
is somewhat preferable. I understand the comments made by the
public and by the neighbors and I share some of the same
concerns. But we are trying to masterplan this whole project and
I would not vote at this point to change the Council's decision.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve the application
for the MAA facilities including the tent expansion, the parking
22
PZM4.9.91
lot revisions and the eastern location as revised for the
rehearsal facility.
Sara: I so move.
Roger seconded the motion.
The motion did not pass.
MOTION
Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve the application for
the MAA facility, the tent expansion, the parking lot provisions
and rehearsal hall on the western side.
Richard: I so move.
Motion died for lack of a motion.
MOTION
I will entertain a motion to approve the MAA's facility for the
tent expansion, the parking lot and the rehearsal hall with city
council making final decision on where the rehearsal hall shall
be.
Bruce: I will make that motion.
Richard seconded the motion.
Bruce: I want to ask a question of the applicant. Is it really
true that you have no preference?
Harry: No, we don't have a preference and we have maintained a
very studious balanced position on this. There are very
important pluses and minuses and I think that is what it comes
down to. It comes down to this issue of what is more precious--
this open space on one side as opposed to the open space on the
other. And there is a lot of reason associated with the east
side of the tent. That side of the tent expanded into it's
current condition only about 10 years ago when the Japanese tent
was added to this location for the IDCA Conference. And until
that time it was quite a bit narrower.
I feel that by moving it to the north location we have--in spite
of what has been represented--about 50% of the existing eastern
lawn seating has the exact same conditions that they had before.
So I do think that that solves a lot of that problem.
23
PZM4.9.91
The other side I am very sympathetic as an architect to your
responses about the hardness. I am not a hard architect. My
work in general is not regarded as such. And I will do my best
to give this humane quality no matter what. And hard surfaces
are required in certain places, Welton. We are going to have
some people going in and out of the building. Right now a lot of
the grass turns brown in that area because of the impact. That
is not an inappropriate solution to that problem.
I don't think these are the issues in terms of it's location is
my point. The basic thing comes down to is something pristine or
something that has been messed up. Something that is inside the
circle or something that is outside the circle. Something that
has impact on it or has a direction towards residential units or
something that is internal with a lot of trees.
What I would like to say is that it is very important that we do
get some direction. We are going to be asked to come back to you
with a design development level of a very, very important
building and right now we don't even have a site. We are back
and forth in both places and our next meeting we are supposed to
have practically the complete building and this is putting us in
a very hard position. We have responded to every level.
When we presented this building it was shown with the possibility
of being on both sides but the drawings were actually done
showing it on the west side. This exact group discussed it and
gave us a clear directive to place it on the east side. And I
agree you have gotten more information since then but we did get
a very clear directive from you. So I would submit that we are
attempting to respond to you.
Welton: We have 3 members who want it to stay on the east side.
We have got 2 members that want it on the west. And we have one
member that wants it to go away.
Harry: But Welton you have changed your mind. And I think that
the point was that you gave us the directive to put it on this
side. That was a very clear directive and a very clear part of
the original--
Welton: And it was based on a very limited amount of
information.
Amy: We are talking about the process and what the implications
might be as to moving the site because we are concerned that we
follow the code procedurally correct. The code requires that
there be a precise plan in sufficient architectural detail and
design to enable evaluation of architectural landscaping and
design features of the proposed development including the
24
PZM4.9.91
location and floor area of existing buildings and other
improvements including height, type and location. I think if you
do decide to move the location you should make a finding that you
feel that you have enough information to enable you to make your
decision on the west side.
Our concern at staff regardless of site was that we don't know
what the information is in terms of how it accesses or how the
trucks will get in there. We have very limited information. If
you do give the applicants direction to come back with a new site
I think you should specify the level of detail that we need to
fully evaluate the new site and determine whether they can
provide that information either to the Planning commission or to
the city council in time for the final review.
Welton: That is all well and good.
stalemate.
But we still have a
Amy: A couple of options to the stalemat--you could wait until
your next hearing. We do have this continued to April 15th.
However, again the applicants are concerned about the timing and
getting some direction so that they can pull together the kind of
information that would be necessary to the west site so we can
review that and make sure that we approve of whatever the new
design is.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor that was to leave it up
to City council and there was a second on that motion.
Roger: I would like to see included in that motion the idea that
if the eastern site is preferred by the city council that we
recommended the amended eastern site as opposed to the original
application site. That is that it be brought to the north.
Bruce: I amend my motion.
Richard: I seconded and I agree with that qualification.
Bruce: I would like the Council to know that there were 3 in
favor of the eastern site, 2 in favor of the western site and 1
not in favor of it at all so the council will have a feeling for
how we voted. I would like this to be a part of the motion.
Richard: I agree with that in my second of the motion.
This motion was defeated.
Perry: I just think you should ask the city Attorney in regard
to what Glenn's question was that if there is a conceptual
approval that says it shall be on the east side and you wish to
25
PZM4.9.91
overturn that, don't you need a majority vote in order to say we
want to change that.
Welton: I don't think what we are doing tonight is changing or
returning anything. We are an advisory board to the city
Council. And our advice to my mind my advice to them is change
from what it was 6 months ago because of additional information
and being able to see how it would hurt that meadow.
Perry: So if you
need a majority
recommendation.
are changing your recommendation,
vote to make that change?
do you not
Your prior
Welton: Yes.
Perry: And you can't seem to get a vote that says--maybe it is a
motion that says we change our prior motion that said it should
be on the east side. Can you get a majority--do you need a
majority to make that change in a prior motion in a conceptual
approval or not? That is a question for the City Attorney.
Roger: I agree with you.
Richard: On procedural grounds I think that Glenn and Perry are
correct. The original motion should have been made to move it
from east to west. The one to put it on the east may have been a
mute question.
Jasmine: On the other hand we have been asked to approve an
application and we don't have approval. What it ultimately means
is do we approve this conceptual development or whatever it is
that is before us.
Perry: Your conceptual approval was "Put it on the east". And
that question was decided. In a final approval if you are re-
thinking that decision. Do you need a majority of the P&Z to
overturn your prior recommendation to City Council on which City
Council acted and they validated it and enforced it and
recommended it too. I don't know.
Amy: Jed can disagree with me but the final development plan is
a new process. A new public hearing. Conceptual is a conceptual
process. There is no vesting or no commitment given to a
conceptual approval which is a new process.
Perry: So you are saying an applicant has no reliance in what is
decided at conceptual approval.
Amy: Right. No legal reliance. We are not talking fairness.
We are talking--strictly legally there is no legal reliance. We
26
PZM4.9.91
meant to set up a process that is fair which allows the applicant
to move forward and move ahead. That is why we have a 4 step
process and sometimes this happens.
Perry: I understand sometimes it happens.
find out what is happening.
I am just trying to
Amy: I don't think their vote tonight has anything to do with
how they voted at conceptual. It is a new hearing and their vote
here tonight is based on the application before them tonight.
Perry: So the fact that it says that it shall be on the east in
conceptual approval has no meaning. We could have come back in
and put it on the west and that would have been just as valid?
Welton: There is a majority of people that want it to stay where
it was suggested or where it was indicated it was preferable at
conceptual level. There is a minority that thinks that that
decision was perhaps hasty. I wish there was some way I could
figure it to approve it on one side or the other. But I am not
going to sit here and tell you that when it is built on the east
and the newspaper articles and letters to the editor come to say
"How did this precious meadow get trashed?" that I am not going
to say that I was pressured into it at a quarter of seven just to
get it moving.
Bruce: We are not voting finally tonight anyway, are we?
Welton: No.
Bruce: We are doing that on the 16th.
MOTION
Welton: will you make a motion that--
Bruce: There is no motion needed.
be continued next week anyway.
The whole thing is going to
Gideon: The problem that I have is the process.
Welton: Well, we can't get out of the process tonight. We have
the wrong escape plan.
Gideon: Can't you leave your motion the way it was with the
majority who felt this way and send it on that way to Council?
And let us present what we have to present to you next week and
have it go to Council that way as opposed to leaving us to next
week and not knowing what to do.
27
PZM4.9.91
Welton: There were 3 motions. All 3 of them failed. The best
we can hope for is, as Bruce suggested, our missing member being
here next week to break the tie. I cannot imagine another motion
that is going to do anything different from what we have come up
with so far.
smith: When you move it to the west next week presuming that you
move it to the west, then we will have to re-design it for the
west to a level of specificity that would allow you to give us
final approval so we will need to schedule some additional
meetings with you.
Roger: I would suggest because really all we are doing is
preparing for a resolution at this point--we know what the straw
vote would be concerning the resolution on this matter. And
shall we just leave it for the resolution as opposed to trying to
definitely determine it tonight.
Welton: I don't think we have much choice.
Roger: My suggestion is to carry on here. We know what the
straw vote is as far as coming up with a resolution. And maybe
by the time the resolution comes before us we will be able to set
it in cement.
?: There have been a couple of comments about access and service
and all of that that might influence some people's votes on this.
Perhaps you can give them direction to come in with some
information on that. It is one thing some people have drawn
opinions on but it has never been discussed. No plan for access
or service on the westerly side has ever been submitted. And
between now and next week maybe it would be helpful to have Harry
take a look at that.
Welton: You have been saying that you don't want to make a case
one way or the other. If you can convince Richard or I that
there are problems with the west side then go for it.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve the tent
expansion--OK, here is a motion that I know will pass. I will
entertain a motion to approve the tent expansion, the parking lot
revisions and the rehearsal hall at a location that is yet to be
determined. That is approving the rehearsal hall in principle
which one member doesn't want to do at all but the other 5
members do.
Richard: I will make that motion.
28
PZM4.9.91
Sara seconded the motion.
Richard: We are talking about I think the addition to the rear
of the tent. The interior will not expand. It will just be
revised seating.
Roger: I would like to see the parking area removed from this
motion because I have some comments about transit access which is
parking area use.
Sara: And it was also recommended it be paved.
Roger: There are some things about the parking area that need to
be discussed and don't need to be a part of the other items.
Amy: I suggest that you use Roger's idea of forwarding your
vote--the 3,2,1--in the resolution and identifying that issue to
Council where the location of the rehearsal facility is
concerned. We can bring that resolution next week and you can
have a chance to vote on it again.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine and Roger.
-. The motion passed.
Roger: The reason I voted no is because the parking area was
included in it. That was the only reason I voted no.
Welton: I have a legal opinion from the City Attorney explaining
how we can to the GMQS scoring.
Kim then went through each category and explained the Planning
Office's scoring of each category.
Kim: Staff does not have the opportunity to give bonus points
but the Commission does. That is at your discretion.
Welton asked if there was public comment. There was none and he
closed the public hearing.
Perry: We are concerned. The Planning staff has scored this at
1/10th of a point over threshold. We feel that this property and
this project and the benefit to the community that are coming out
of this entire redevelopment are major. We feel that there are a
great many areas of the scoring where we should have received
more points. There are areas where we were downgraded where we
were specifically told to conform to recommendations ie the
tennis townhomes. We were told to push them down the slope so
29
PZM4.9.91
that their perceived height was 1 and 1/2 stories so that they
would be set back as far as possible from the entrance road to
the Meadows. Now we are having points deducted because we are
not being sensitive to the slope.
I am concerned that the message that will go to city Council by
simply adopting the Planning Office score, while it is expedient,
I am concerned. I feel that this commission should consider
bonus points and may not have the opportunity to do so.
Welton: 1/10th of a point or a hundred points as long as you are
over the threshold the same goal has been accomplished. However
in an effort to meet the legal requirement as outlined by the
City Attorney--
MOTION
Welton:
reviewed
Planning
points.
I will entertain a motion to acknowledge that we have
the Planning Office score and that we agree with the
Office with the exception of granting the full 5 bonus
Because we can, we will add the 5 bonus points.
Sara: I will make that motion.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Amy: The code does say that the maximum bonus can't be more that
10% of the total score which would be 3.37.
Sara: I amend my motion to accept the Planning Office's score
and award the maximum bonus points allowable--3.37.
Jasmine amended her second.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce and Richard.
Joe Wells: Could we discuss excess allocation.
Perry: Given the way it works there is no residential allocation
available. So we go to the minimum which is 30% of the 20 free
market units which is 6 units. We have 14 residential units--the
10 townhouses and the 4 single family that we need an allocation
for. The excess allocation is 25% and it can be awarded by
Council but often P&Z will make a recommendation to award that.
Amy: we are in support of the excess allocation at staff.
code is not clear on whether it can be granted in excess of
That interpretation needs to be made by city Council. It is
inappropriate to be discussed at this point.
The
30%.
just
30
PZM4.9.91
Sara: Do you want more than 14? I don't get it.
Perry: No. The code says that the Planning Director is in
charge of code interpretation and Amy is saying that she is going
to leave it to city Council and we are just trying to get as much
support as possible so that we have some kind of momentum going
forward on this. Because if we don't get--if the quota is not
available and we have to come back in and compete then this whole
process stops until that time.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion recommending to City council
that whatever excess allocation is available or whatever process
is necessary to come up with an excess allocation be implemented.
Roger: I make that motion and also indicate that we have seen no
benefit in requiring a phased allocation to this project.
Everyone voted in favor of this motion.
LODGE FACILITIES
Amy: Last week the lodge facilities and the location of the new
lodge facilities was presented to you along with the Health Club
expansion and the restaurant expansion, the parking facilities--
Welton: Does anybody have any comments regarding the
presentation last week on the institute facilities?
Gideon: I need to put some things in the record. You have been
given a list of variations--a request being for both subdivision
and zoning so that you are working with a current set of
documents that the road was changed after the submission. The
new road that was approved today is very similar that was
approved at conceptual with the lots and the building envelopes
modified with the road location that you approved today.
The plat is evolutionary. In the memo we have submitted we
explained how we will implement the changes. We need the
flexibility but as you approve things we will be adding things to
the plat so you have an actual document to review that the new
restaurant drawings have been submitted to you that the tennis
townhome siting has been adjusted a little bit to accommodate the
bike trail and that you will be getting more detailed drawings on
the rehearsal hall next week.
Amy: For those reasons we do not want you to vote on the SPA
variation tonight. The memo was brought in tonight and we did
not have a chance to review it.
31
PZM4.9.91
Welton: We are talking 2 different areas. We are talking the
facilities of the Institute, not the variations and SPA stuff.
MOTION
Roger: I will make a motion to approve those and include them in
the resolution.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Welton: The residential development has been covered more than
any other part of this application.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve those for inclusion in the resolution.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: I will continue the public hearing to date certain of
April 16, 1991.
Welton: Barring any objection this meeting is adjourned.
Time was 7:45pm.
32