HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910416
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 16. 1991
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre
and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, and Mari Peyton
arrived shortly after roll call.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Welton: I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow
Commissioners for 14 years with interesting Tuesday nights. This
meeting will be my last meeting if the Meadows is resolved and goes
before City Council. So rather than making a speech I just want
to say goodbye to everybody.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy: Planning staff wants to thank you, Welton, for all of the
years that you have served and let you know that we will be
planning an appropriate celebration in recognition of your years
on Planning & Zoning commission.
WELTON: AND WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS A RECORD-BREAKING MEETING
TONIGHT. PAINLESS. OUICK AND TO THE POINT.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
RIO GRANDE RESOLUTION
Leslie: There are 4 clarifications I need from P&Z regarding this
resolution. Those are P&Z asked that the valley light rail track
alignment and the terminal be shown on future maps. I am assuming
that you want staff to include that within the memo in your future
review packets.
The second one is the actual alignment for the trolley. You have
said that specific alignment concerns should be reviewed by the
City Council. I am sure if we are all to referring to the
alignment as it goes around the ball field or the alignment should
go half way around the ball field. We didn't really specify which
half and also staff was hoping to get to some conclusion on whether
the alignment should dip down into the trees.
Someone had made a comment that the
eliminated right there at the Art Park.
really what came out of the meeting or
trolley stop should be
I wasn't sure if that is
if that is something you
PZM4.16.91
want to include in the future review of the actual alignment of the
trolley.
Sara: I recall on discussing the ball field that the trolley would
go down that between the Youth Center and the Jail and come around
on the north side.
Roger: Assuming there is a north side alignment I see no reason
to exclude the stop at the Art Center.
Richard: Those are my conclusions exactly.
Sara: One question--regarding prior to the time of submission the
applicant shall work with the Commission to develop and operational
policy of multiple use for the--I don't want them to work with us.
I want them to come back with the idea but I am not going to
schedule it for them.
Leslie: I suggested that before final submission check in with you
guys to see if they are on the right track with you.
Sara: Because I was really adamant about that.
Leslie: I want them to present to you what it is that they have
come up with prior to final submission.
Roger: On the first Whereas that plan of 1988--is that the plan
that is the adoption prioritization of the uses to be accommodated
on the Rio Grande SPA?
Leslie: Yes. That is where you talk about that the snowmelter
should be eliminated and the area should be used for arts usage.
Leslie: You did not prioritize that statement. I did not see a
prioritization. This SPA plan of 1988 is the last time anybody
looked at the plan as a whole.
Roger: Well, on one of those plans we set up a hierarchy of
accommodations in the SPA. I would like that included somewhere.
As far as I know that was adopted by both us and City Council. I
would like a reaffirmation of that or inclusion of that.
The setting up of the priority of the uses.
transportation uses were to be accommodated
available basis other uses to be looked at
was the plan I remember.
For example primarily
first. And then on an
on top of that. That
Sara: On page 4--Item 8. Is there a conflict if we eliminate the
snow dump?
2
PZM4.16.91
Leslie: Yes. There would still be a conflict because that
only vehicular access to the lower portion of the site.
called Snow Dump Rd right now.
is your
It is
Sara: Art Park Way.
MOTION
Roger: I move to adopt the resolution concerning the Rio Grande
SPA as relates to the Art Park, Trolley and Snow Dump.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine.
Jasmine: The reason for my "no" is I cannot approve of the Art
Park structure.
716 WEST FRANCIS. 620 WEST HALLAM AND 214 WEST BLEEKER
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Roxanne: Made presentation as attached in record.
Welton asked for public comment.
Anne Meridith: I live at 624 which is next door to one of the
remodels. I don't really have a problem per se with the landmark
designation but since you are considering a masterplan as far as
FAR, I do have a problem with the size. They are basically
building to maximum FAR. I just wanted to make sure that the
landmark designation only entitles them to a variance on the
parking space reduction. I have a problem with them possibly at
a later date getting variances on height or whatever else.
Welton: We are not in a position to rule on any of those
variations in FAR or setbacks. That is something that will happen
at conceptual review level at HPC and there will be a notice sent
out. We have no say on any of those variations. That is an HPC
call.
There were no further public comments and Welton closed the pUblic
portion of this hearing.
MOTION
Jasmine: I move to recommend landmark designation for 715 West
Francis, 620 West Hallam and 214 West Bleeker on the condition that
all requirements have been met.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
3
PZM4.16.91
GORDON STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
Jasmine asked a question here but there was so much noise I
couldn't hear.
Leslie: I have not checked with our city Attorney on this.
Jasmine: Obviously we have an opportunity here if the applicant
wanted to provide an accessory unit we would like to see a
caretaker unit there.
Leslie: The stream Margin Review I would eliminate #1 in the
conditions of approval to the accessory dwelling unit. But all
the rest of the conditions of approval stand. What we requested
of the applicant is to run an analysis on the river and the river
basin and the 100 year flood plain and what came out of that And
also is one of the shifting of the 100 year flood plain. What
needs to happen is FIMA needs to approve that change in the 100
year flood plain line. And really it is an amendment process to
the map. If FIMA approves that then we have no problems with that.
But if FIMA doesn't approve that then we will work with the
applicant, FIMA and the Engineering Dept to work out a situation
that hopefully will allow them to do their addition without
mumble.
Welton: stan,
conditions?
(Mathis, architect) have you reviewed the
Mathis: Yes, I have. The rest of it is fine.
Welton opened the public portion and asked for public comment.
There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move the approve the stream Margin Review and conditional
use for an accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions:
Conditions #2 through #11 to be renumbered starting with #1 of
Planning Office memo dated June 16, 1991. (attached in record)
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
4
PZM4.16.91
ASPEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL GMOS. FINAL SPA AND REZONING
CONTINUED
SCORING
Amy: We would like you to re-confirm your vote on the Growth
Management scoring. Code requires that each Planning commissioner
individually give his project bonus points. The last time you gave
bonus points and then voted on it. 'It was a 4 to 2 vote. What we
would like for you to do now is if you wish to give the project
bonus points to write those down and your reason or rational for
those bonus points. And we will incorporate that into the final
score.
Welton: Would you put on your list of things to do for the next
millennium a way of making the voting to confirm the Planning
Office recommendation to give it some form of substance. Most of
the time it has not been a problem. This, because of the concerns
of the applicant that all the T's be crossed and the I's be dotted,
we are having to jump through a lot of hoops that it might have
made more sense to score the whole thing as if it was competing
with another applicant.
Amy: We can add some language to the code to allow for that.
Richard: I am 1 of the 2 people who voted against accepting the
Planning Office scoring. The language in the resolution here says
something about they were individually scored and we all signed off
on it. That is not what happened.
Amy: That was not our understanding. We were under the
understanding that the Planning commission did accept the scores
but the vote was 4 to 2 against the bonus points. So if that is
the case we do need you to re-score and give it your own score.
Richard did his own individual scoring.
commission members also did the bonus scoring.
CONDITIONAL USE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Kim: To deal with the fact that part of the housing mitigation
plan for the Meadows. Each of the 4 lots has contained within it
a 500sqft affordable housing unit. Typical of what we usually see
our accessory dwelling unit. Although these will carry additional
deed restrictions to require price and income occupancy.
Look at the condition in the resolution on page 16.
standard and has been maintained throughout our
However we have added 2 new conditions--#4 and #5.
It is fairly
presentation.
These are to
5
PZM4.16.91
guarantee that the units are occupied by appropriate tenants.
Basically homeowners are obligated to keep the units occupied by
qualified tenants and it requires that the homeowner is obligated
to notify the Housing Authority when he has a vacancy.
Jasmine: Once again we have conditions that I think are
unenforceable. What if the homeowner does not notify the Housing
Authority?
Amy: We have deed restrictions filed with the Housing Authority
and just like any other unit, the Housing Authority can enforce
those conditions that are in the deed restrictions.
Jasmine: Which means that the Housing Authority then has the right
to put somebody in it.
Amy: Absolutely.
Welton re-opened the public portion of the hearing and asked for
comment.
There were no comments and he closed this part of the hearing.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to incorporate this as part of
the resolution.
Jasmine: I will so move.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
SPA VARIATION
Kim: The SPA variations requests are required in order to allow
certain of these developments to occur and they are broken down
into 2 categories. One regards the variations from underlying
zoning districts which are proposed in the application.
Regarding these zone district variations for the RMF Zone District
and also the R-15 Zone: The RMF zone district variations requested
are a waiver to the 6 month minimum lease requirements for
condominium units that will be constructed in this zone district.
And that is to allow the owners of those units who mayor may not
be associated with the Institute to allow them to be short termed
for Institute users or free market short term use.
There are 2 new conditions within RMF zone district which we have
added in the resolution. Those are where the applicant has stated
that they have found in their architectural analysis that they were
6
PZM4.16.91
going to be exceeding the maximum height requirement for RMF and
these are in the tennis townhomes and the Trustee townhomes.
The R-15 zone district variations requested have been discussed
earlier and those are the minimal lot size requirement for R-15 of
12,000sqft rather than the 15,000sqft and also the 2 side yards on
Lot 7 and 10 which are the outer most side lotline. The request
is to have those be 0 lotline setbacks in order to provide more
building separation within the row there. The staff supports these
mitigations.
Jasmine: On the RMF zone, wouldn't it be a good idea to include
the reason for the waiver for the minimum 6 month restrictions.
Very often in the past we have gotten requests for
condominiumization applications and one of the first things that
always happens is that people want to waive the 6 month minimum
requirement.
In this particular case they have good reason and applies to this
particular property for granting this kind of waivering. It seems
to me that that might be a good thing to include in so that other
applicants can't request the same thing.
Kim: Would you like to include a finding statement
resolution whereby the Commission feels like because of
associated directly with the Institute and the non-profit
in the
the use
users.
There was general agreement on this.
Welton re-opened
public comment.
hearing.
the public portion of this hearing and asked for
There was none and he closed this part of the
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to adopt this portion of the
resolution.
Mari: I so move.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
VARIATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION REOUIREMENTS
AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Kim: We asked the applicant the last time to provide us with
comprehensive listing of every variation they were requesting.
There are variations out there that would be part of the SPA. For
the most part subdivision requirements are contain both design
issues and the intersection design. They are proposing no curb and
7
PZM4.16.91
gutters. I think the Engineering Dept would like to have included
traffic control signs. We had meeting with A.J. Zavia and Roger
yesterday. We went over some of these design issues for the
intersection. Design standards again for roadways include ROWs
which the City Engineer will accept upon final designation. At
this point they appear to be about 47ft.
Amy: On page 18, A2 instead of just saying "portions of streets"
"street right of way". We want to say street design and right of
way and portions of street right of way. So it encompasses design
of street as well as the right of way.
Roger: I have a question about A3. Would it not be better to say
"The minimum anticipated radius is 65ft".
Welton re-opened the public portion of the hearing and asked for
public comment on the design standards.
Chick Collins: I have prepared a letter which addresses some of
the concerns that I have with regard to variances in design
standards. (attached in record)
He also questioned the qualifications of A.J. Zavia as not being
a traffic or transportation engineer.
The other thing the letter addresses generally in the whole
application is the inadequate and incompleteness of the final SPA
development plan submittal. I think this submittal was totally
inadequate in terms of requirements set forth in Chapter 24 of the
Land Use Regulations and compromise a lot of important issues that
should have been brought forth by the Planning and others who have
reviewed the submittal.
One item was the final subdivision plat which should encompass
something in the order of 20 to 30 specific items that were not
shown on the final submission plat. And I think this lack of
information makes it extremely difficult for the citizens who come
to these public hearings to respond in a responsible manner when
they do not have the information they need to find out what is
going on.
Welton: ChiCk, are these the same inadequacies that you brought
up as deficiencies at the first meeting we had 2 weeks ago that I
suggested that you get together with the Planning Office in order
to give notice to the applicant that they were deficient?
Chick: I think there was a general statement at that time. If
you will recall in the subdivision and design standards there are
something like 30 to 40 items which have just been glossed over
8
PZM4.16.91
that have not been responded to and not been responded to in an
effective manner.
For instance, the alignment of the new road that comes down from
7th and crosses private property and goes into the race track. I
brought this up to the Planning Office at one time that the private
lot is non-conforming and the code says :you cannot make it more
non-conforming.
Welton: Are you talking about Charlie Marqusee's lot?
chick: I am just siting an example. The answer to that was that
the applicant should give the equivalent amount of land to make up
the deficiency on this non-conforming substandard lot. So the map
was changed and communications were exchanged. This is how it was
going to be taken care of. Now I understand it has gone back again
and that may not be necessary because there is a new order of
things which involve a public road easement on a private road--
something to that order.
These are all very questionable items and I think that as these
are looked into further the deficiencies and the weaknesses of the
entire application will become very iminent.
Amy: The last hearing where we stated that design interpretation
of the code and the city Attorney's interpretation of the code that
the new ROW across Charlie Marqusee's property is not in violation
of the non-conforming section of the code. And therefore there
does not need to be any kind of property exchange or lot line
adjustment for that property for a road going across Charlie
Marqusee's property. The Planning Office feels that this
application does have sufficient information and where sufficient
information has not been provided in a level of detail, we have
conditions of approval that require that that level of detail be
submitted and reviewed prior to City Council review.
There were no further public comments and Welton closed this
portion of the hearing.
Roger: I have some problems with item #10 that I think we should
re-word in such a way to take into consideration in effect the on
site re-design. It is my understanding that what we came up with
was that we not be at odds with our road standards. Was there
anything in there that would be in non-compliance with our road
standards? For example the T intersection.
Kim: What we determined at our site visit was that Bob Felsburg
was going to respond to the proposed sketches and at that time we
were going to make double sure that he was going to run the grade
and some of the other things. And what you are saying is that this
9
PZM4.16.91
#1 doesn't apply at this point because you have done some field
work--
Roger: It is the statement of the T intersection because we have
gone beyond the T intersection. The proposed re-design--just take
out the T at this point.
Perry Harvey: I think when we had a meeting with Amy and Kim and
Chuck what we had discussed was some language in that design
standard area it talks about street rights of way will be dedicated
to the city at a width acceptable to the city Engineer. What we
talked about was more general language which would say that road
designs and street ROW widths would be acceptable to the City
Engineer. I think that applies in this too.
Kim: I think so.
Amy: This area are your SPA variations either variations from
subdivision requirements in the code. So we want to make sure that
we know areas which may be a little bit different from that which
is required in subdivision regulations. But we also want to insure
that all safety and site line issues are satisfied and that is why
we put the general condition that it has to be designed to the
acceptability of the City Engineer.
Roger: Additionally I have the 8th st connect. We have basically
2 alignments and I don't know if it is whether we should discuss
those and make a recommendation for one or the other alignments.
A
Welton: We basically agreed with your compromise solution with
A.J. at the last meeting.
MOTION
Roger: I move to include the subdivision improvements and design
standards in the resolution as amended.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Ramona Markalunas made some remarks at this point which were not
distinguishable on the tape.
Kim: What the SPA requires is approval of the final development
plan. Are you confused between that and the platting requirement
that results from subdivision?
Amy: We are approving the final development plan that was
submitted and modified during the hearings on the application.
There are no plats at this time.
10
PZM4.16.91
Collins: What Ramona is saying is this resolution which is 20 some
pages is only available--I picked mine up about a half hour ago.
And you go into a lot of very technical questions and issues within
this. Yet no one in the public hearing-none of the citizens-have
had a copy of this so they could look at it and at least be abreast
with the Commission in your discussions.
Wel ton: Well, they weren't in our boxes until yesterday afternoon.
As soon as they were available to us which was as soon as they came
off the zerox machine it was available to the public.
Amy: There is no requirement for us to have the resolution out
before the public comes in. Normally what we would do is have the
Planning commission vote and then we come back with the resolution
which codifies their vote on all of this. In order to try and make
this process more understandable we try to take what they have said
and put it all in one package so that they can review it and look
at it that way. That is where we are now.
Collins: The purpose of the public hearing is to give the citizens
an opportunity to respond to whatever is brought before a governing
body. And when you bring forth something and the public has not
had an opportunity to review this then certainly they are at a loss
to respond in a proper fashion.
And this is the same thing with the application. There is a great
deal of information there as there is in this resolution. And to
give this out a half an hour or 24 hours, a couple of days before
the meeting I think puts the people who come to the public hearing
at a distinct disadvantage.
Welton: All of this information has been available in one form or
another for a long, long time. And 2/3rds of the resolution is a
direct result of the discussions of the meeting last week and the
week prior to that. The items that we are trying to get through
right now are the tail end items that were really not threshold or
crucial items in the beginning and we can get back on track the
result of these last items then we can start over at the beginning
of the resolution and if we do find anything that is really a new
revelation then we will have something to discuss. But I haven't
found anything that is new and terribly different in the
resolution.
Ramona: I would like to raise an objection to the way the public
has been informed throughout this project. I would also like to
see somewhere in this room a plat or a map or a design map or
whatever you call it that we can review.
Harvey: Just for the record this masterplan map was available all
during the process. The conceptual submission map was available.
11
PZM4.16.91
The only meaningful difference between this and the final is
location of the rehearsal facility which has in fact moved during
the process. This is a result directly from the masterplanning
process and everything that flowed through conceptual and flowed
through final went through the public hearing process and the
masterplan. And I don't think there is any information that is
missing to anyone in the public who wants it.
Welton: There has been available more maps and more drawings and
more pictures of this than anything I have seen in 14 years. So
please don't tell me that you are naive as to the graphic
representations to this because it has been available since this
process has started.
We have a motion on the floor and we have a second on variations
from subdivision requirements.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING
Kim: The applicant is requesting review for parking in an academic
zone for the parcel that contains the non-profit users that zone
district requires special review of any parking within that zone
district. There are no minimum parking requirements established
in the code. Page 17 of the resolution regarding parking in the
zone district there are 3 conditions regarding special review for
parking.
Richard: Does the bike program come in under this part here?
Kim: The traffic mitigation plan is that which establishes the
requirement to have rental bikes available.
Richard: In the memorandum from the Consortium on page 2 they are
talking about delaying the bike program until everything else is
done. That does not sit well with me. I think they should
implement at least part of it as soon as possible at the beginning.
Harvey: There are 2 parts to the bike program. This for the MAA
there is bike storage which is proposed when that lot is re-
worked. The other part of it is the availability of bikes for the
lodge guests and how that dovetails in.
Richard: And you are going to incorporate that in the parking
structure?
Harvey: Right.
12
PZM4.16.91
Richard: I would like to see some kind of interim plan included
in that.
Fred smith: I think that is fair.
Amy: We will be discussing the traffic mitigation plan and the
bike program at the beginning of the resolution.
Welton asked for public comment of the special review of parking
in an academic zone. There was none and he closed this portion of
the public hearing.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve the section of the
resolution for special review of parking.
Richard: I move to approve the special review for parking in an
academic zone with the 3 conditions as presented in the resolution.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
GMOS EXEMPTION FOR SPECIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Kim: The applicant is requesting units which would allow
for any of the non-profit users within the Meadows SPA to be
considered for Growth Management Exemption both for profits and
mitigation of their development and non-profit users.
On page 21 there is the statement recommending to the Council
approval of the GMQS Exemption and for profits mitigation for the
facilities specific to the Aspen Institute and Music Associates of
Aspen.
This is broken down into 2 specific requests. One regarding the
Institute facility and on your agenda describes lodge, health
club, tennis facilities and the restaurant reception facility and
the next category is MAA facilities which are the expansion of the
tent the back stage area and the construction of the rehearsal
facility
Staff is in support of the Institute uses as far as the growth
management exemption as well as the MAA facilities. Staff still
maintains the tennis shop facility and restrooms need to be re-
studied and reduced in size and pull them back from the roadway
and also that we have included a condition in the SPA requirements
the applicant needs to verify that the expansion does qualify as
an insubstantial amendment under the SPA regulations and that is
new condition #29.
13
PZM4.16.91
At this point the applicant has re-spaced the new location of the
rehearsal hall at HPC's request and comments from last week and
also the commission's discussion from last week when the Commission
voted 3 to 1 to also indorse HPC I S recommendation to move the
location farther north on the east side of the music tent.
I hope that all of the P&Z members have had a chance to go out and
look at that new staking situation. Planning staff supports this
new location even stronger than the original east side location.
And there are 3 main reasons. One is that the new location and
reduced mound structure does open up more views toward Independence
Pass and the town side of Aspen. #2, more usable lawn area on the
east has been made available now by virtue of moving it farther to
the north. The 3rd is that it in fact increases the service access
for the MAA and allows them to share some service access facilities
from the parking lot at the Institute side.
Roger: I would add a #4 in that it reduces the visual impact from
adjacent property owners on Roaring Fork Drive. I am just adding
#4 that it reduces the visual impact to adjacent property owners
along Roaring Fork Drive.
Amy: We would like the Commission to make a motion with respect
to the GMQS exemption as a recommendation to City Council that the
facility be exempt from the Growth Management Quota and mitigation
required by virtue of When it gets into the location of
the rehearsal facility, you can do that separately.
Roger: I think we need to be a bit more specific as to what
mitigation of the requirements they are exempt from. There are
some mitigation requirements they are not exempt from. I was
confused by this when I read it.
Gideon: On condition #29 which says the applicant shall verify
that the expansion to the restaurant building qualifies as an
insubstantial amendment under the SPA amendment section. The
process for insubstantial amendments as we put in our letter to
you is designated to handle a technical or engineering
consideration not anticipated during your approval process.
The Planning Office made the finding that at conceptual SPA you
were able to look at the change the sites if you wanted. We feel
that enclosing a deck at the restaurant is something that we have
the ability to ask for and that we can't--it is not an
insubstantial amendment. We would like you to make a finding
during this process that it is appropriate for us to be able to
enclose the deck area and that that should be the finding and that
we could do that because we can' t--we are not through the SPA
process right now. So we should be able to amend this right now
in the actual approval for the SPA for you to find that it is
14
PZM4.16.91
appropriate for us to enclose the deck and for that to be exempt
from GMQS.
Welton: On that last paragraph of page 21 in the resolution, you
know how crazy we get when we get stuff shoved in our face at the
last minute.
Harvey: I just want to enter this into the record.
Welton: The last paragraph of page 21 is nice but it is not as
thorough as we have just been discussing and particularly is not
cover1ng Gideon's point that you can't really approve the
restaurant expansion as an insubstantial amendment but that it has
to be part of the GMQS exemption as a part of the essential public
facility.
I would like to see this portion amended to be more complete and
to make that determination that these are the essential public
facilities and this is a way of approving it.
Amy: During the masterplanning process the masterplan states that
the Institute facility, the lodging facilities and the music
facilities in terms of the rehearsal hall and the expansion of the
tent would--the Council in the masterplan said they would exempt
these from growth management and the mitigation.
At the time of the masterplan and at the time of conceptual review
there was no mention of any expansion to the restaurant. So the
first time that we read about the restaurant was during the final
review and it is for that reason that we are requiring that it
qualify as insubstantial amendment to the SPA because at the time
of the masterplan we said you can make minor changes to your square
footage if you fall within the requirement of insubstantial
amendment.
So from the staff's perspective we feel that if this indeed did
qualify for insubstantial amendment we have calculated it and we
feel that it does. It is not a huge increase in square footage
that it would also be appropriate for the exemption. That the
exemption in this case is only for the facilities that are being
proposed by the Institute and the MAA and nothing else.
We can certainly list those facilities out and the square footage
in the resolution if that would help.
Welton: I don't think that is necessary. But just that we are
familiar as to what we are exempting and what we are including in
that exemption.
15
PZM4.16.91
Richard: During this whole discussion on mitigation exemption was
the discussion included of the potential use of the Institute
lodging facilities on a commercial basis?
Amy: That was discussed with City Council and the Planning
Commission during the masterplanning.
Richard: I have a problem exempting them for half a year
commercially. That gives them an advantage over other lodging
facilities. So I would suggest that the language on page 15 be
amended to provide that these facilities are not used on a
commercial basis--on an academic use but not for a commercial use.
Welton: That puts the whole process back to square one. It has
been an exercise in civics that we can all put in our scrap book
but it is not their application.
Jasmine: I am inclined to agree with Richard's point and I would
feel much more comfortable if we could divide it into 2 things.
It is one thing to exempt them from growth management competition
and another thing to exempt them from mitigation. And I really
don't think it is unreasonable to bring this to 2 separate aspects.
I support one but not support the other.
Welton: That is not the application they are making.
Amy: city Council will make the final decision on exemptions. It
is the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Welton: Would you like to see the resolution include a minority
point of view that the Institute facilities can only be used as
facilities for non-profits and not to be used for commercial use
to offset their expense.
Richard: I said if they use it commercially they should mitigate.
Jasmine: The point has to do with mitigation, not the use--the
amount of mitigation.
Wel ton: Would somebody make a motion one way or another that
either exempts or recommends to City Council GMQS exemption for
exceptional public facilities for the Institute facilities that
being the lodge as essential facilities and restaurant reception
area and exempting MAA facilities attempt expansion of the
rehearsal hall. And that is an exemption from GMQS and an
exemption from mitigation associated with GMQS application.
Amy: The resolution states that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council an exemption with the GMQS and the mitigation in
16
PZM4.16.91
an academic zone district. As you recall we previously talked
about a code amendment which allows City Council to exempt non-
profit lodging to academic zone district from the mitigation and
the competition required under GMQS. SO that sets the stage. You
have already discussed that. Now what you are doing is deciding
that this particular project is going to make you want to recommend
under that code amendment be exempt from both the GMQS and the
mitigation. And that is what is stated in the resolution.
Welton asked for public comment. There was none.
Gideon: I would like to remind the P&Z that when this proposal
first came in a number of years ago and the free market lots that
were created that were going to be the economic generator at that
particular time there was talk about not having the restaurant
operate possibly in the winter time. When the Council made the
decision that we were not going to allow the free market
residential to pay for all the improvements for the Hadid
organization then it fell upon the Aspen Institute to raise the
money and to run the operation.
Based upon that particular scenario understanding that if we have
to raise $10 million to renovate and run it the Council made the
decision, and it was appropriate at that time, for it to operate
both in the winter time as well as the summer time because it was
not possible for the Aspen Institute to take on a $10 million
dollar renovation and not be able to generate income in the winter
time.
When you have a lodge out there you also need a restaurant. As
Woody said time the restaurant has traditionally been used. As a
matter of fact when the Copper Kettle was out there it was twice
as busy as it is right now. So that is an integral part of this
whole masterplanning scheme is to allow this thing to operate year
round so the non-profits don't have to lose money in the operation
of this thing.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to recommend to City Council
GMQS exemption for essential public facilities and in that motion
either add exemption of mitigation or specifically don I t add
mitigation for exemption.
Jasmine: I will move to recommend exemption from GMQS competition
as essential public facility for the Institute and MAA facilities
without any mention of mitigation. That would include the
restaurant facility from the competition.
Mari seconded the motion.
17
PZM4.16.91
Welton: Is there any further discussion?
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
Welton: Opposed?
No answer.
(I put this in because there was later discussion as to whether
Welton asked for opposition vote on this motion. It is on the
tape)
Welton: OK. Second motion.
Jasmine: Second motion. Actually I don't have a second motion
because I don't want to recommend that they be exempted from
mitigation.
Welton: Well, make a motion that they not be exempted from
mitigation.
Jasmine: No, no. My point is that I personally don't feel from
a land use and planning commission standpoint that this would be
appropriate. However this is a situation in which there are more
things involved than just land use issue. And I think it is more
appropriate for city Council to make a determination as to any
mitigation with regard to all the other facets that are involved
in the Meadows.
Welton: What we have just done is adopted that portion of the
resolution because of a lack of mention of mitigation.
Jasmine: That is my position. To separate it into 2 things. I
am not comfortable with mitigation. My feeling is that it would
be appropriate to have city Council do it. That is why I wanted
it separated.
Mari: Jasmine, would you feel comfortable recommending exemption
from mitigation for certain parts of the SPA--certain uses?
Welton: This is awfully far down the road to get into a threshold
discussion.
Jasmine: It is not a threshold discussion.
Welton: It was a discussion that happened a year ago.
18
PZM4.16.91
MOTION
Richard: I will make a motion.
Sara: I would like to make the original motion.
Welton: We have already made a motion and passed it.
Sara: You didn't ask for negative--
Welton: Yes I did.
Sara: No you didn't.
Welton: Let the record show that--
Sara: I do not want them--I don't want them to mitigate.
Welton: The mitigation was never mentioned in the motion.
Sara: Yes, she did.
Welton: No. It was not mentioned in the motion. It was only to
exempt from competition as an essential facility for the MAA.
Sara: I want them exempted from mitigation.
Welton: Would you make a motion?
MOTION
Sara: Yes. I would like to make the original motion and recommend
approval for cash exemption and mitigation for essential public
facilities.
Mari: We already had a motion for exemption for essential public
facilities. We just did that.
Welton: We have already done the
Sara: I think it is a stronger motion to have them both.
Welton: But we have already voted on--if you make that motion to
recommend to city Council--let me try to word it for you.
I would entertain a motion to recommend to city council to exempt
the Institute facility and the MAA facilities from mitigations
normally associated with GMQS.
Sara: I so move.
19
PZM4.16.91
Bruce seconded the motion.
Welton asked for discussion.
Roger: I can see where Jasmine and Richard are coming from. And
my quandary here is if it is a commercial restaurant facility there
are some mitigations you don't want them to be exempt from. But
not all. My problem is determining which mitigation we are talking
about on this issue.
For an expansion of a commercial restaurant there is
housing aspect of it that they would have to mitigate.
mitigations are there that we are talking about? If
determined maybe I can vote for this motion. Except
expansion of the restaurant as a given and then go on
obviously a
What other
we get this
for minimal
with it.
Amy: other typical mitigation would be for open space. That is
about it. So other aspects for mitigation really don't come into
play here. If we are accepting traffic mitigation then that is it.
Welton: Are we talking about only the expansion for the restaurant
or are you talking about mitigations for the tent, the rehearsal
hall, tennis.
Roger: It is the commercial restaurant aspect of it. However if
those are the mitigation items I think those are primarily covered
by the remainder So I can support this motion.
Bruce: Well, I seconded the motion and I support it for the
following reasons: #1 the initial assumption is that these are
essential community facil i ties. I think they are essential
community assets as well. I make arguments all day long, Richard,
about the lodging standpoint of it because I am in that business
and I don't like somebody to have an unfair advantage. But I think
these institutions and these facilities are so essential to this
community that I am willing to take it on the chin. I am not going
to be a NIMBY on this issue. I am willing for these institutions
to get on with their business and make this community a better
place. That is the reason I am supporting this.
Roger: Thank you and I concur 100%.
Welton: We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Amy: I want to make a point of clarification. The code currently
allows city council to exempt essential public facilities from the
growth management competition and mitigation. However, it does not
allow City Council to exempt the housing requirements. So there
is already a provision in the code which says that the Council can
20
PZM4.16.91
make determination for an essential public facility that it be
exempt from mitigation requirements that are GMQS and from
competition. But it specifically talked about housing. What we
are amending in this code language is to allow city Council to
amend all mitigation if it is an essential public facility.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor to recommend exemption from
mitigation from the GMQS requirements.
Roll call vote:
Sara Garton, yes,
Peyton, no, Roger
yes.
Richard Compton, no, Bruce Kerr, yes, Mari
Hunt, yes, Jasmine Tygre, no, Welton Anderson
Motion carries 4 to 3.
Welton: There is wording in the resolution concerning the location
of the rehearsal hall. It indicates that the majority of the
Commission favors the easterly location. Although not a clear
enough majority to win a motion to recommend the eastern location.
Does the commission want to take another vote?
MOTION
Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve the revised location
of the rehearsal facility to the east side of the music tent more
northerly than the original application as currently staked on the
site.
Bruce: I so move.
Sara seconded the motion.
?: Has anybody ever considered the music campus.
Welton: There are rehearsal facilities at the campus and I got an
anonymous telephone call from somebody saying "Why don't they put
the rehearsal facility in the Marolt cafeteria?" There is a
rehearsal facility there too.
?: I am talking about there are 2 down there.
mumble school down there. But there is also another
large parcel out there where this building would be totally--
nobody would ever see it. You are going to take away that whole
meadow over there. There are people that go there every Sunday-
-trust me--I live right across the street--they park allover my
lawn, they walk allover my yard. You are taking away that--
21
PZM4.16.91
Welton: We had an hour plus of discussion devoted to this last
week.
Husband of?: This is a hundred year decision. This building is
going to be here for 100 years!
Welton: The opportunity to make this final decision rested, rests,
and shall rest with the City Council. They have already made up
their minds that the wildlife and whatever foxes and gophers on the
west side are more important than what is on the east side. And
the people.
? Shriever?: There are Fox in there. There are people who sit
there very Sunday afternoon and listen to the concerts. There are
kids that run around that field. You are putting a building up
that has no business being in this neighborhood. It is the only
accessible lawn in the neighborhood. It is a commercial building.
It doesn't belong there. Have you ever, ever considered thought
of putting it down right at the Music School where their property
is?
Welton: That is not what is being presented or applied for.
?: Excuse me. But if you want to talk to people that come up
there and sit there and picnic with their kids on sunday afternoon.
Have you talked to them?
Welton: We talked to them for an hour--a couple of hours last week
and they talked to HPC for 3 hours.
?: No. I don't think you did. I was out of town. (much laughter
from rest of public here)
Welton: The forum has been sent. We have gotten stacks of mail.
Thank you for your comments.
There is a motion on the floor. I will entertain a motion to
withdraw that motion because it was voted on last week. It was
finally decided last week. I brought it up because it was a last-
minute decision last week. It is not in our hands. Ultimately it
is in the city Council's hands. We are only a recommending body.
Sara: Then recommend it to them, Welton.
Welton: I will tell you what is going to happen right now. You
are going to have 3 people recommend it, 4 people to recommend it
to be on the east side, 2 people recommend it to be on the west
side and 1 person recommend it to go to Hell.
22
PZM4.16.91
Lilly?: with no public input or anything?
Welton: with a considerable amount of public input, Lilly.
Roger: I will withdraw my motion in order to re-open the public
hearing concerning this issue. However I have got to advise the
public that my attitude last week hasn't changed about this issue.
It has basically been determined through a masterplanning process
that the City Council basically oversaw and adopted. As far as I
am concerned if it gets switched from the east side to the west
side it will be a City Council decision and not mine. My decision
right now is that the best place for it is in that northeast
portion where it has been moved to.
That is on the basis of what has been presented before us. Public
input is very nice but I don't think it is germane to the issues
we are covering. If you want it moved to the west side, play this
letter game with the city Council because I don't think it is
appropriate for us to change the site location. As far as I am
concerned the public had plenty of opportunity to input this
information to the City Council in their masterplanning process.
I was certainly at a lot of those meetings and everyone else
certainly had the opportunity.
Welton: (Trying to calm the lady in white) Please. I want to
_~ see it changed to the west side. I think it would be a disaster
if it ruins the little pasture on the east side. We have had a lot
of public input. There is no new information on this past last
week's information.
Sara withdrew her second to the motion.
Welton then re-opened the public hearing.
Robert Hart, Music Festival: We have obviously been active in this
process as well as with the City Council. And a lot of the
concerns that are being addressed by the public are actually just
not true. We have got a lot of misconceptions out there.
Harry Teague, our architect has spent a week Showing exactly where
the new location is. The location that was certified by this body
last week. The location that was recommended by the Historic
Preservation Committee. The location is north and east of the
tent.
I think that if you would allow Harry the time to show you where
this new location is, to show you that the eastern lawn seating is
still maintained, to show you that the views of Independence Pass
are maintained, to show you that the height of the roof is lower
\ than the single family homes across the street and to show you the
23
PZM4.16.91
kind of view plains we are talking about and the increased lawn
seating that perhaps a lot of the concerns of the public here--if
they are really concerns about eastern lawn seating and if they are
really concerned about views of Independence pass--they have been
addressed by HPC's modification of the site and building.
Harry Teague then made use of slides and drawings of the site for
the rehearsal facility and it's relationship to the tent, the
neighborhood, the pristine meadow, the unimpeded views of
Independence Pass, Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk, Highlands peak,
Shadow Mountain, Snowmass Peak and the height of the facility in
relation to the surroundings. He brought out that the only
vegetation that would have to be removed would be a bush by putting
the facility at this site.
After examining all of this I have a very strong opinion that I
think it is better that the facility be located on the east site.
I think it is a much better site. A substantial part of the lawn
on the east side is unaffected by the facility at this site.
This territory in here all becomes new lawn seating. This path
here moves outside these trees so that the area in between those
trees and the tent is all dedicated to lawn seating that does not
have a pathway running through it. I think this greatly improves
the lawn seating.
This is our only possible service access for the facility if it
were to go on the western side. This path that runs around the
outside for a length of approximately 100ft would have to be used
both for pedestrian and vehicular access to the facility. The
other thing that happens if we move this building to the east side
this particular section of the tent which is garbage etc will move
over and be contained within the berm on the east side. This
doesn't work on the west side because the west side is too far from
that end of the tent.
Some of you have come because of the adds in the paper that say we
are removing all outdoor public seating around the tent. Be
reassured that everything represented in green on this board is,
in fact, lawn seating that will be available outside the tent
removing this path here from this location out to there so that
this particular section in here is going to be enhanced.
One of the things that has come up is kids and Moms. I want to
put that one to rest. This is all Mom location. You can see
several Moms here. Over here are kids rolling down the back side
of the berm with their yells and screams and don't disturb the
people in the audience or the musicians in the tent. The Moms can
see the kids. The kids can roll down the berm. The musicians
24
PZM4.16.91
don't hear that and the Moms hear the music. I think we can have
the best of all worlds with this.
(much applause for this point)
One other thing that was mentioned
vegetation. The only vegetation that is
at this site is this one bush.
was removing existing
removed by the facility
Jeffrey Evans: (to Welton) First of
congratulate you. This is your last night
for your time on this Commission.
all I would like to
and thank you very much
(much applause)
This is a good example of how tough this job can be and we
appreciate it.
I want to get really back down to basics. What we are really
trying to do here is to trade an environment for some of the finest
classical musicians in the world who come and ply their craft.
The one thing that has interfered with that over the last 15 years
is the ever increasing noise of the neighborhood around Roaring
Fork Rd and the access road to that rear parking lot.
When I first heard of this particular location for this facility,
I was immediately enthused because I thought it had been planned
as a noise buffer to keep down the amount of noise from the
surrounding neighborhood.
I think that someone like David Finkle playing a solo celo and
having a dog bark, a horn honk, a motorcycle and a pickup truck
with a bad muffler interrupting the same piece of music and then
finding out that someone' s view from a lawn can somehow take
precedence over solving that problem--it makes me want to throw up.
I went out there today. I looked at the flags. I looked at that
top-most flag at the highest point of that building. I looked
where it was in relation to the Lauder home and I think it became
very evident what is going on here. This is NIMBYism of the most
blatant and most shameless form. It is one of those times when
you should nod your heads and say "Thank you for the input" go
ahead and vote the way you were going to vote and move this process
forward.
Les Holst, member of HPC: Aspen is a historic resource. What
happens with a historic resource when you nibble at it you lose
your resource. What we have been doing is we have been nibbling
25
PZM4.16.91
for years and there is a point where you drive a nail and you
destroy your resource and that is what is happening here.
If we can't learn--look at the Ritz. It is going to be the
disaster that everybody told everybody it was going to be. Three
years from now they are going to be renting those rooms for $30
apiece. Somebody is going to aquire that place for 50 cents on
the dollar and what is going to happen is half the small lodges
are going to go. They are going to be replaced by 3-story
townhouses or whatever. And we will lose Aspen as a historic
resource.
It is ridiculous to say that by destroying this space out here we
are going to bring better musicians. We have had the best
musicians earth has to offer for 15 years.
I sat on an airplane once with Itzaak Perlman and asked him why he
loves to come here and he said he just loves the whole process.
He loves the children and the dogs and everything. That is why
these people are coming here.
The reason why we have all these committees is if one makes a
mistake, another one can rectify it. If another one makes a
mistake the third one can rectify it. The HPC made a serious
mistake recommending this northeast situation. It shouldn't be on
this site. It should be down where the campus is.
Historically people establish what works. And you don't mess with
it. And that is what has happened here. It has been established.
It works. Anything that happens to this is going to be negative.
And I think it is going to be throwing out the baby with the bath
water. The MAA is going to suffer. We are going to lose the
musicians we got. The people aren't going to come. It is just a
natural disaster.
It behooves us to look at this and don't let it get by if there is
any doubt at all. The information the City Council got when they
made a decision, well, that was wrong. And it is your chance to
rectify this.
Harry Schreiber: I have to agree with everything Mr. Holst has
said. Is there any mechanism within what is going on today since
there appears to be some serious conflict either among the
committee itself to reconsider and to restudy what is going on?
I have listened to what is going on in the room. I have looked at
the pictures and there were no pictures of the western site as to
the views to the western site. And the elevation and the way the
pictures were taken--I went over and took some pictures and the
elevation of the reflect what you see when you are sitting
26
PZM4.16.91
on the ground. But at this point I see all this as superfluous.
Is there any way that this committee has the ability to restudy and
rethink this location? Either to the eastern site, the western
site or to some other site altogether?
Bill Poss, Chairman of Historic Preservation Committee: I thought
it would be important that I come down. I respect Les's input.
He happens to be one of the opposition. But the HPC did--the
members voted in a majority in favor of the east side location.
We found that it met our standards, that it retained the perception
of the tent--by moving it to the north. We found it retained the
perception of the rehearsal facility moving it to the north and
retained the perception of the tent and Meadow feeling that
everybody is trying to keep.
We think the applicant has done a fantastic job. We also asked
them to reduce the height of the facility and to restudy possibly
reducing the mound. I think if you were to go out there and see
the siting you will find that the lower roof allows the tent to
become the dominant feature, retain it's historic nature and
reducing the mound keeps this facility in a much more unit scale
in that open space setting.
I think you will find that this newer location does not obstruct
any of the view lines that everybody is concerned about and I think
Harry has proven that with his slides.
I think the big question that everybody asks that the HPC did study
is that if it works so well on the east, why doesn't it work on the
west?
From an historic standpoint I think the committee members found
that it does not meet it's standards of compatibility on the west.
If you look at the Meadows the historic campus feeling keeps the
buildings on it's perimeter with plenty of space between those
buildings. I think you will also find historically that each
building sits on the landscape and keeps it's own identity because
it has this trait. I think the applicant has done a good job of
relating this facility functionally to the tent and by keeping it
on the east side it really allows it to work in a very historic
setting. And I think the majority of the members found that to be
the case.
Lilly Garfield: If per chance you do stay with the site that you
have right now designated, would you consider the time change of
when the concerts would be performed?
Welton: I think that is certainly something to be considered.
That is something the MAA needs to look at seriously.
27
PZM4.16.91
?: First of all the western seating location does more than
compensate for any loss of seating on the eastern side. The total
amount of lawn seating will increase by 50%--a little over
19,000sqft to almost 30,000sqft. So there is going to be plenty
of lawn space. A lot of the western seating is shaded by very
large Aspen trees. There will be additional planting to provide
additional shade so it will be shaded from the sun and also the
westerly winds hit that side of the tent first.
?: The whole emphasis has been to the eastern site. You never
made them do anything about lowering the size of the building for
the westerly site. You did a good job of looking at the easterly
site. Now let's take a good hard look at the westerly site.
Ron Austin: I represent the "Friends of the Lawn". And I want to
complement Harry on his presentation of the slides because what he
did from where I was sitting is he took all of his pictures from
the tent location right here heading east to show the structure and
it's minimum impact. We are talking about the people who like the
lawn, their perspective is out here. It is not in the tent looking
back.
On the other side when he took his pictures he went out into the
area that would be the west location of the building and took the
pictures. I think that was a very substantial distortion of what
the impact is here. If you would look at this berm location-
somebody last week said You are going to feel like you are in
canyons here with all this big structure. That is exactly the
objection. This impacts tremendously the people who want to be on
this side on the lawn.
with respect to the comments about the service, we all know that
the service for the tent right now comes in this location. So when
we are talking about taking that same direction for service for
this rehearsal facility I defy anyone to convince me that there are
going to be hundreds of pedestrians on that service entry at the
same time a couple of trucks are there delivering drums and pianos.
So the impact is still here on the lawn on the east. Sure, they
have lessened it but why should we talk about mitigating and
lessening the impacts? Let's talk about moving it over here on
the west where it doesn't have those impacts. It doesn't impact
the lawn, people on the east. It doesn't impact the neighbors.
It doesn't impact the views from 3rd and Gillespie. Instead of
mitigating, let's eliminate the impact.
Welton asked if there was further public comment. There was none
and he closed this portion of the hearing.
28
PZM4.16.91
MOTION
Welton: There was a motion on the floor that was withdrawn. The
motion was to approve the location of the rehearsal facility on
the eastern side of the music tent and in a more northerly
direction.
Roger: I so move.
Mari seconded the motion.
Welton asked for further discussion from the commission.
Richard: For me this issue is not so much obstruction of views as
domination. I still believe that once all that dirt and roof goes
in there that the eye will go more to the new performance facility
than to the classic tent. As far as my own sense of aesthetics go
standing over here on the west side it is completely surrounded on
3 sides by trees already. And it would be almost invisible except
directly from the south. I think it fits in better to the
landscape there. Also I would feel better about having a valley
on this side than on this side. And there is not really any more
obstruction of views on this side than on the other side as far as
I can see from Harry's pictures.
Question for the applicants: The way that the zoning is drawn on
the map the wilderness preservation comes around here and leaves
substantial area there out of it. Now I am wondering if the desire
is to keep that for open space why isn't that extended down or
isn't that designated open space? If it is designated academic it
seems there is a potential for a new Institute building there
rather than the MAA building there. I would like to hear from the
applicant if they would be willing to designate that open space and
if the rehearsal hall goes on the east.
Gideon: First of all, Richard, the location that you have referred
to is not the location that is acceptable to the Aspen Institute.
The Aspen Institute is not willing to give the land in that area
that you talked about nestled and tucked in. On the original
masterplan on the western location as shown was more equal distant
which brings it right out into this particular prominent area. So
the concept that somehow it is going to get tucked in there is
inappropriate. If it goes anywhere it is going to go somewhere in
this particular area without the benefit of the shading of trees.
So I just want to clear up that misconception. That is not where
it is going to go if it goes to the west. They were asked to stake
a location on the west. No definitive location was picked and so
the MAA chose that.
29
PZM4.16.91
Richard: I have a hard time with that. It seems like a
misrepresentation. You didn't answer my question. Is the
Institute committed to not building in that site in the future?
Gideon: It is designated as academic because we didn't know what
was going to go over there. So open space designation may be
appropriate if that is left and it goes on the other location.
Richard: Well, if this is the portion designated academic and you
are saying that no other rehearsal hall will have to go out here
and not designated academic it seems to be a basic contradiction
in your statements.
Gideon: No, in the masterplan there were 2 locations shown for
the rehearsal hall. We are saying that that is the position of
the Institute would prefer if it goes on the western location.
There has to be an allocation in change if that is picked.
Everyone seems to forget that in the conceptual SPA the eastern
location was selected. That is where all the time and energy has
been put over there. We haven't been addressing the western
location. If that happens then we will allocate which is
appropriate for academic which is appropriate for open space and
which is appropriate for WP.
Sara: I would like to hear if the Physics Institute has a
position.
George stranahan, Aspen Center of Physics: We support the
rehearsal facility. We have supported it on the eastern site from
the beginning and we continue to support it there.
Roger: I have not heard anything more today that has changed my
mind. I think the location of this rehearsal hall was picked in
the planning process which had plenty of opportunity for public
input to that location. Not only that I happen to believe that
the eastern location is much better for this facility mostly from
a service viewpoint. I think the applicant has done an excellent
job and I really support moving it to the north. I was hoping even
more to the north. I have no problems with this location right
now. I think at this point it should be moved. It is my opinion
that city council decided the location. They are the ones who
decided that it should be moved.
Richard: One question for the architect. Roger just brought up
the point of the building being even further north. What
constraints are there on not moving another 20 or 30 yards?
30
PZM4.16.91
Teague: We would be forced to eliminate a lot of vegetation at
that point. We wouldn I t be able to save the trees that are
currently there. That is our primary reason.
Richard: We can grow new trees. We can't create new land area.
Wel ton: I am in agreement with the first part of Richard I s
statement that the western side is the preferable side for a lot
of the reasons that were enumerated by the public.
The motion is to approve the location as shown to the east side.
Roll call vote:
Sara, yes, Richard, no, Bruce, yes, Mari, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine,
no, Welton, no.
Motion carries 4 to 3.
WHEREAS STATEMENTS
Amy: First of all, Perry Harvey has submitted a letter into the
record that Planning Staff has not had a chance to review. Of
those things that we agree with or what we are recommending a
language change. But those things that we have not had a chance
to discuss we may want to commit that as part of the record to City
Council and have them discuss it at Council.
I will start with the WHEREAS statements.
We will amend the Whereas statement that talk about the rehearsal
facility to the special vote that was taken tonight. Second we will
amend the GMQS scores and the bonus points based on our adding up
the Planning Commission scores and the individual score. So the
numbers may change once we are able to add up those scores.
The 4th Whereas statement the applicant has asked for a minor
wording change to reflect the fact that the application for
residential growth management allocation was submitted by Savannah
and approved by the other non-profits. We will make that language
change.
On page 3 the very first sentence--the applicants have requested
that the language be modified slightly to reflect that the HPC was
not recommending that the rehearsal facility be reduced in size but
that the berm be reduced in size. We will make that change.
31
PZM4.16.91
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Amy: The first condition is asking for the applicant to submit a
detailed construction timeline. This is similar to how we treat
other large projects. We do allow applicants to amend if they run
into unforeseeable problems. We are also asking that that
construction timeline requests that the extension of 7th st to
Meadows Rd be complete prior to building permit being issued for
West Meadows.
Harvey: The construction time table issue for the Institutions
depends on the fund raising. So there has got to be some kind of
recognition that that unknown factor. In terms of the extension
of 7th st the Institute currently plans on beginning construction
on some of the lodge buildings both new and upgraded in late August
or right after Labor Day of this summer.
The road cannot be started until after the music and the Institute
programs are over with. What we have said in the memorandum I
submitted to you that there will be some construction traffic on
the existing Meadows Rd because the Institute is going to start the
same time we currently anticipate starting the road.
We want to minimize that impact but to say that we have to complete
Meadows Rd then you will get no construction this winter and
everything will be delayed for an entire year because the Institute
can't build during prime building season when they are running
their programs.
Welton: It seems like an impediment to efficient phasing of the
construction to make everything hinge on the completion of that
road.
Richard: Or we could amend it to say "Construction on the road
shall begin as soon as possible in the Fall of '91 and as soon as
it is done, traffic will be "
Roger: Or just include it in the timeline. That gives you the
process.
Fred Smith: We will submit a timeline to city Council and discuss
it at that time.
Welton: And the timeline shall include the completion of the new
Meadows Rd--Upon completion of all construction traffic will be
restricted to the new Meadows Rd.
Page 5, #3.
Roger: I have a comment on #3. I think we should review it one
year after completion and then every 2 years after that.
32
PZM4.16.91
Amy: The applicant has expressed a concern that we not evaluate
traffic during construction. staff feels that we should be
evaluating the traffic during construction because of the 3 year
construction period. We feel those commitments were made during
the masterplanning process.
There is another concern about annual reviews and will they go on
forever. Our feeling is that we didn't want to put an ending date
to review if something should be reviewed on a continuing basis as
long as the facility is in operation. However we are not adverse
to adding language that the city council would waive the annual
reviews if they don't see a need to continue.
Roger: I am for adding language that City council may terminate
the reviews if they are no longer needed.
Richard: Presumably the purpose of the review is to check on the
effectiveness of the traffic mitigation plan and I would say that
once that has been established as effective and unless there are
changes in it there is no need for reviews. Up until that point
as long as the traffic mitigation plan is in development and in
the process of being implemented then they need to be traffic
reviewed.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion regarding the applicant's
concern about checking the traffic during construction.
Richard: As I understand it construction will be fall, winter and
spring and we are mainly concerned with traffic during summer time.
Perry: That would be important if that was the issue. It doesn't
state in here when this traffic count is to be done. For the
purposes of comparison do you want counts in July and August? That
is a lot easier than doing counts every month of the year.
Amy: Those are details that we would require at the time that the
applicant--we just put in general parameters in the condition that
there will be a review by staff and we will be requiring reviews.
If there is extensive use of the facility at a lodging facility
during the winter we may want to look at just that.
Gideon: We will discuss that with Council.
Amy: We will revise the resolution to add language reflecting the
years 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 and language which City Council may
terminate reviews no longer necessary.
33
PZM4.16.91
Welton: #4 on page 5. There were no problems with this.
#5 on page 5.
Perry: If we could add some language in there that talks about
severe weather which obviously can delay a truck or circumstances
beyond the control of the operator. I just want to cover the fact
that if there are construction delays on 4-laning and everything
else. And these guys are making their best efforts and
occasionally they can't make it, it is sort of like--
Language to this affect was agreed to.
#6. No problem.
#7. No problem.
#8. No problem.
#9. No problem.
#10.
Roger: I am a little confused as to this easement for the trail
ends between 7th st and the race track.
Perry: We have got that on here and basically it is through that
gap in the trees right at the end of 7th and it goes up and it is
going to run along the eastern edge of that irrigation ditch.
Roger: OK.
Welton: Potable and irrigation water. #l2--drainage, design.
#13.
Amy: We have already made an interpretation that is consistent
with the Building Dept so this provision for fire places is not in
the Land Use Code--in the Environmental Health section of the code
and we feel that there is a disagreement that they should appeal
to the Clean Air Board and not to the Planning Office. But we have
interpreted that this is one building under their application.
Perry: Just to get this on the record I think Amy is wrong. That
it is a zoning Code definition of what is an attached or detached
dwell ing .
Amy: It has been designed as one building.
Perry: Would you give me a code interpretation.
34
PZM4.16.91
Amy: I sure can.
Perry: OK. And would you also tell me what my appeal rights are
to the Board of Appeals or to review by the city Attorney or by
city Council because I feel that that is wrong.
Amy: The intent of the regulation whether you agree with it or
not was that they only wanted to allow 1 fireplace per building.
They did not want to allow 1 fireplace per dwelling unit. The
issue is is that a building and, yes, it is a building in the
definition of our code.
I think the concern is not the definition of building. The concern
is the applicant might have 1 fireplace per dwelling unit and that
is inconsistent with the Environmental Health Dept' s rules and
regulations. It has nothing to do with the Planning Office.
Perry: It is a condition of P&Z approval. So you guys are
endorsing the fact of this. And it is my contention that those
buildings 'are not attached. It is not a multi-family dwelling
unit. We are replacing all the wood burning fireplaces with gas
and we are entitled to 1 per unit. And I don't know if you guys
want to let this pass this way. Whether you feel uncomfortable
with this issue, whether this issue is something that I should take
up with the Planning Director and not with this commission at this
time.
Do you want to eliminate this from your recommendations?
The answer was "No".
Roger: But isn't gas fireplaces exempt from this?
Amy: I think there is a problem with them converting to gas.
Gideon: There is a difference between gas fireplace and gas
appliance.
Welton: Fugitive #14.
#15. No problem.
Welton: #16.
Fred Smith: We would like to raise an issue on #16. For those of
you who are familiar with the area today, the stairs that go down
to the pro shop leave immediately from the edge of the road. That
building has always been very, very close to the road. It also has
on top of the existing structure a balcony seating area that was
designed originally by Fritz and the original architect. We have
designed a structure, working with HPC, that maintains the scale
35
PZM4.16.91
that is there today and also maintains the image and the feel of
the entrance to the Institute's lodging properties. with moving
the stairway and the small landing back about 3 or 4ft off the
roadway we have improved the situation that exists there today with
respect to it's location to the road. Yet we have maintained that
intimacy of the entrance experience going in there.
There is also about a 5ft separation between the back wall of the
Pro Shop and the tennis facility itself. That separation is there
in order to naturally ventilate the parking garage. If we were to
move the Pro Shop back, we would then lose the opportunity to
naturally ventilate and then we would have to mechanically
ventilate.
One of the major issues that we have discussed throughout the
process with yourselves, City Council and HPC is to stay out of
impacting the race track. The eastern edges of those tennis courts
are already bumped up against the counters 1 ope coming off of that
ditch. Any additional movement to the east will require some
cutting into the race track.
We would request that this condition be eliminated and the Pro Shop
be left as it is designed and approved by the HPC and as it has
been reviewed by city Council. The idea of the rest room is that
it is in the location that helps block or break up the linearity
of design of the entire facility. Something that was requested by
this particular board when we took it to city Council.
We have also broken up the 2 buildings and have added a break wall
so that when you are driving down Meadows Rd you don't see a single
block structure. This was also reviewed by HPC and approved with
this configuration. We would again request that it be left as it
is.
Welton: Does anybody have any objection to eliminating condition
16 altogether as per the applicant's request.
Amy: The facilities are so close to the road and we just thought
that they should be moved further back off the road.
Welton:
further
think--
But if pushing it back involves pushing the tennis court
into the race track then that's a tradeoff that I don't
Amy: We weren't suggesting that. We were suggesting just 1 imi ting
the size of the facility and limiting the height so it is less of
a visual impact and having the building right up against the road.
36
PZM4.16.91
Fred: I ask you to turn to page 18, plate 18 which shows a little
better graphically what we are talking about in terms of scale.
The building itself is lower than the windscreens that form the
edges of the tennis court. And again we are talking about a
facility here that represents the scale of the building that is
there today. And that was something that we were trying to
imitate. This building square footage wise represents an awful lot
more program than the old building did.
All the existing building did was take care of tennis pro shop
activities. The new building will be integral in our auto
disincentive programs, our bike rental programs, cross country
skiing in the winter, etc. We feel it is imperative to maintain
the size of the building so that we can adequately provide for
those programs which have been identified as important by everybody
we have spoken to on it.
MOTION
Jasmine: I would move to strike condition #18.
[
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Sara.
Wel ton: # 17 is about ventilation for the parking garage. No
problem.
#18. Trail easements. No problem.
#19. Efficiency measures.
Perry: States that all energy efficiency measures represented in
the GMQS application be implemented in the lodge and residential
units.
The GMQS application was specific for the residential units. That
was the application was for the residential. And all of the
representations in the GMQS will be put in covenants and will be
put into the residential units. I don't know whether this was an
oversight or whatever but we haven't done any kind of analysis as
to applying those specific representations to the lodge building.
And I have no idea as to the effect that is going to have but it
seems to me that since the conceptual approval as a condition that
energy efficiency be one of the primary goals throughout the
development that this condition should rightly apply to the
residential units but should not just be kind of slid over onto
the lodge facilities when that wasn't the purpose of the GMQS and
we really have no chance to look at it.
Welton: Would anybody have any objection to eliminating the word
"lodge" from the condition #19 with the understanding that the
37
PZM4.16.91
existing lodge units probably could never be brought up to energy
efficient levels because they didn't apply when they were built.
And any new lodge unit will be under the jurisdiction of current
energy codes.
Fred: We have absolutely no problems meeting the codes that are
related to lodge construction. In most instances because of our
own desires to see the most efficient buildings we possibly can
down there. We have already hired energy consultants that are
working with us right now in design.
But to ask us to build those buildings or design those buildings
in accordance with something we have not even had an opportunity
to review with respect to their planning effort would be wrong.
Amy: The issue is that it was a condition in the masterplan and
a condition of conceptual that the applicant show us how they are
going to exceed the energy standards that we have right now. We
have not received anything from the applicant that says what they
are going to do. I would be more than willing to change the
condition that says "prior to City Council the applicant shall
demonstrate how they are going to comply with the condition they
agreed to at conceptual".
The problem is we don I t feel it necessarily complied with the
intent of those masterplan and the conceptual. Otherwise I don't
know why you would have had that as a condition of conceptual prior
to final.
Fred: with the "exceed" language--I don't believe was left in.
It was to be considered a priority in the design effort and which
it continues to be a priority in the design effort.
Amy: We don't know how you did that.
Fred: If you would like to restate that and put it in as a
condition, that is fine. But to tie us to the GMQS application on
the residential side is making us apply the design of the lodge
buildings to a residential code. The codes are very specific in
that regard and they take into account all of those.
Roger: On #19 shall we strike "lodge" out of that and put in
either another condition number to demonstrate how they are meeting
the conditions of energy efficiency.
Perry agreed to this.
Welton: #20. Housing impact fees.
38
PZM4.16.91
Amy: The applicant is concerned that if they came in to do the
tennis townhomes that they would have to pay the fees for the
and we have allowed them to pay only when they come in for
that.
Welton: #21.
Roger: Can we get a title or an office as opposed to a person.
Heaven forbid the person dies--the director of ACES would be OK.
Welton: Revegetation guidelines. No problem.
#23.
Perry: #23 and 24 we have comments in that memo but that's--
Welton: #25.
Perry: We have problems both with 25 and 26. We do not feel that
we are obligated to give the irrigation water to the City. The
Institute has traditionally irrigated that particular property and
we feel and we will get together with the City Attorney on both 25
and 26 because we do not feel we should be required to give up our
irrigation. Nor do we feel that we are required to install an 8"
interconnect line to upgrade the system that has nothing to do with
us.
Perry: The City says that in return for the irrigation the City
will provide the proposed development with potable and irrigation
water. Well, we are already on city water. We are within the city
limits. This is a condition that applies under the City land use
with annexations where you are going on the City water system and
in return for that you turn over your irrigation and well rights.
In this case we are on city water and we are making upgrades within
the property.
#26, I don't know what that is. We are doing a loop system
internal to the property and I think the Water Dept would like in
their best case scenario to have a couple hundred thousand dollar
water line running down there and across to Black Birch but I
don't--
Bruce: Perry, you can give us your best shot. And we are giving
you our best shot.
Perry: Absolutely, Bruce and I am just responding to it. I have
no problem with the request--
Welton: Does anybody have a problem with eliminating #26?
39
PZM4.16.91
Richard: Where did it come from?
Amy: It came from the Water Dept.
Welton: The Water Dept wants anything they can get their hands
on. And always will. That's the nature of the beast.
Fred: One of the most important landscape features of that entire
area is those small ditches. And I don't know if any of us can
imagine that whole property without water running through those
ditches. And I don't begrudge the Water Dept for attempting to get
their hands on some additional water rights but if they do, those
water rights then become transferrable for other purposes and the
area can be dried up. I think it is important that this commission
make a statement in that regard.
Roger: That's #25.
Welton: We have not discussed at any of the previous meetings
anything to do with the city taking the water rights to the
property or the addition of an 8" interconnect to Black Birch Dr.
I don't think it is appropriate right here if the Planning Office
wants to argue it out with the city Council--fine.
I propose that #25 be eliminated. We have not had a discussion on
this and it is far beyond the scope for us to discuss.
MOTION
Jed Caswall, City Attorney: I will speak up on behalf of the Water
Dept in that nobody else will. As regards to #25 there is an
Ordinance on the books that says essentially if you are going to
substantially extend the use of your water even though you are
connected to the line it is not the dedication of water rights to
meet that expanded use is provided.
The Water Dept does in fact feel very strongly about this as
pointed out. If in fact this project was coming into the City on
an annexation or was connecting for the first time to the water
system there is no question that the city would get the water
rights. Again there is a provision that talks about expanded use
of water even though you are on the city system that would allow
for the dedication of water rights to meet that expanded use.
The payment of increased tap fees would not based upon the
information provided by the head of the water Dept the proposed
extended use of water in this project will in no way be covered
by the tap fees this project will pay.
40
PZM4.16.9l
As far as whether or not the city would deny irrigation water to
the Meadows I think the record is fairly clear as to how strong
the city feels about this piece of property and the idea that the
City would in any way deny water to that project I think is pretty
far-fetched.
As far as #26 goes at this point in time I do not disagree with
the applicant as to #26. I have asked the Water Dept how is the
necessity of the 8" interconnect line caused in any way, shape or
fashion caused by the development of this project? And the answer
I have gotten is that it is not. And as has been stated here
somebody is taking their best shot to get everything they can, I
don't think it is unreasonable however to continue both #25 and #26
on to Council and let them hammer it out. Particularly #25. #26
I think is borderline at best.
MOTION
Roger: I would suggest changing #25 to read in such a way that
the issue of water rights and irrigation well rights associated
with the Institute's property shall be discussed with the City
Council. Black Birch is on the other side of the river. I am in
favor of deleting #26.
Roger: I will so move to those 2 issues.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: #27--Performance bond.
Amy: We don't have a problem with the language as being proposed
by the applicant changing the language to financial assurance in
a form acceptable both to the owner and to the city as opposed to
performance bonds.
MOTION
Welton: I will entertain a motion to change #27 to the applicant's
language.
Mari: I so move.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: #28. No problem.
#29. No problem.
We included it in our language approving the exemption from
mitigation and exemption from the process.
41
PZM4.l6.9l
Amy: The Planning commission did not delete this condition. We
discussed it.
Perry: No they did not delete this condition. They included the
list of facilities that were considered to be essential public
facilities.
Amy: They are 2 separate issues. They also have to qualify
insubstantial amendment. They have to do that anyway in the
masterplan. We feel that they qualify.
Perry: Amy,
criteria in
masterplan.
you are asking to meet the SPA Insubstantial Amendment
order to do an insubstantial amendment to the
Amy: The problem was that the restaurant extension was never a
part of the masterplan. It was never a part of conceptual review.
Now whether in the masterplan we did say that additional
development would be allowed if it qualified as an insubstantial
amendment given the section of the code which discusses
insubstantial amendments as to percentage of the total floor area.
Perry: What an insubstantial amendment is a technical or
engineering issue that was not foreseen during the approval. Now
if what Amy is saying is meet the numbered criteria for an
insubstantial amendment then that is different than what I was--
Amy: Why don't we add at the end of the sentence "As required in
the Meadows Masterplan".
Welton: That is good. That would put it back to the cushion that
was provided at the time the Masterplan was adopted.
MOTION
Roger: I will move to include that language in #29.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: #30. No problem.
#31.
Perry: We have a serious problem with #31. Both the Institute,
the MAA and the Physics have a real problem with this. We do not
have a problem giving daytime public access to the race track if
42
PZM4.16.91
the city is willing to maintain it and indemnify us. None of us
however are willing to give public access eternally to our
particular projects.
The Anderson Garden around our facilities, the MAA tent, the
Physics circle of serenity--that is a very important area for us.
We have our seminars outside and we need that. We cannot have
people coming in there whenever they want. The Institute is
involved in two lawsuits at this particular time. I think that
this exaction is inappropriate given all of the trails that we have
given and given all of the open space that we have. It is
inappropriate and a negative kind of exaction to ask from us.
We allow people to come in there but if we have a problem we can
make them not come in and we can get rid of them. They don't have
an inherent right to be there. This is a sacred area for the non-
profits in terms of controlling what goes on in their property.
Amy: Our concern and one the public needs to be aware of: There
is a lot of talk about how people use the Meadows property. I
think people need to be on notice that the Institute could change
hands and we wouldn't be dealing with Woody and the people we are
dealing with now. And they could close off total access to the
race track, total access to Anderson Park and total access to all
of this area.
We do have public easements that allow people on these trails to
move through down to the Conservation area and along the
Conservation area but there is no public access at all internal to
the site. And I think that there is a misconception on the part
of the public that they have the ability to use this property. And
it has been used traditionally and historically by people walking
their dogs etc. And I think it is real important that everyone
knows at any point they can shut off any public access internal.
And that is why we put the condition in to really alert the
Planning commission and the public that although it has been
allowed and it is something that occurs that without any kind of
assurances through this process it could be shut off at any time
just like we have seen in other areas of the city.
Gideon: We are offering access to the race track. What we are
trying to preserve is the internal aspects of this particular
campus. It is vital. We need to control our own destiny and we
do not want to give the public the absolute right to be there when
they can interfere with what goes on there. And it is very
important to us. And I also don't believe from a legal point of
view that given all of the land that we have given, all of the
different trails that we have given that that is a reasonable
exaction at this particular time.
43
PZM4.16.91
This really goes to the heart of these Institutions and we are not
willing to do this.
ACCESS
Welton: I propose that #31 be changed to public access shall be
encouraged internally with the non-profits throughout the academic
and that a mechanism be developed at city Council level.
Sara: Public access shall be controlled internally throughout the
academic. That way people are allowed to do it. People can walk
in the campus but if you are in the way you are asked to
mumble.
Perry: That is the way it has been for 40 years and--
Sara: How about "shall be controlled".
Jasmine: I think controlled means that they can also be restricted
the access as part of the control or forbidden entirely. And I
don't see that that is appropriate.
Richard: I would like to comment on the side of #31 as it is.
That I think the public should have access to there and we need to
trust members of the public not to bring their dogs to the Physics
seminars.
Gideon: But they do it. We have to keep them out all of the time
now.
Richard: Well, maybe add language that not accepting interference
with specific Institute events that are occurring on the grounds.
Perry: What you are saying is you are putting in the category of
Herron Park where if someone wants to they can have their child's
birthday party in Anderson Park and it creates a situation without
going in advance and asking to do that. And it just is going to
create an incredible tension because you get someone from the
Insti tute running out and saying "You can't do this now". And
"What do you mean? I have invited 30 people".
Roger: What is the equivalent law with other academic areas? How
does the University of Colorado deal with this?
Amy: We are sympathetic with the non-profits about people
interfering with their programs. What we need to do is come up
with some language which allows them the ability to say "no".
Bruce: Pedestrian access shall be allowed internal.
be recognized that some reasonable limits of access may
from time to time.
It should
be imposed
44
PZM4.16.9l
Welton: That gives you the right from time to time to impose
limitations on public access.
Bruce: Reasonable limits.
Gideon: Yes. But who makes the decision?
Welton: That is your determination.
Gideon: We don't have a problem with the way it is now. We just
don't want to be in a situation where we have to go to the City
and justify why someone throwing a Frisbee is interfering with a
seminar or the physicists.
Welton: That is one of the occasions when from time to time when
it is appropriate for you to cut off the access. It is your
property. It is up to you. If the Frisbee player objects then
like any other person he takes a complaint to the Police or
whoever.
Fred: If it goes to the Police then isn't it considered private
property.
Wel ton: The Police would probably say it I s the Institute' s private
property and they can restrict it if it's gotten out of hand. The
Police are going to side with the property owner when somebody is
using their property.
Bruce: It tends to preserve the status quo the way it is now.
Gideon: Then we have no problem with that.
MOTION
Bruce: I will make a motion that the public has access but you
have the right to control it from time to time using reasonable
limi ts .
Roger: I second that motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
Welton: #32. No problem.
SUBDIVISION
45
PZM4.16.91
Perry: I thought we had discussed that public access road where
the west property boundary intersects with the road. That is just
shy of that parking garage entrance. My concerns are that ROW with
grades and intersection shall be approved for safety by the city
Engineer.
Once we get really internal to the property we have got that
parking structure and bike paths and we want to be able to control
that. I think we discussed this at the last meeting and it was
decided that it would be at that point and then we will get
easements that are necessary for snow equipment to turn around or
whatever they have to do if they are plowing that road to that
point. But we would like to have that as the deciding point that
west property line which puts it at the end of the private property
on the west side of the Meadows Rd which is Jed's concern when we
were going through pUblic/private road.
Amy: The staff was concerned that they were going to put a gate
up where it turned into a private road and we thought that that
gate should be at the point where the cars turn into the parking
garage and that the rest of the property was designed to be
pedestrian oriented and we didn't have a problem with cars not
being allowed in there.
Gideon: We will commit that there won't be a gate.
~.
Amy: So public access will be all the way--
Gideon: Would be out to the restaurant turn-around. All I would
like is that Meadows Rd should be a public local street to the end
of Jim Adams property or the beginning of Lot #6 which is the
tennis townhomes. If you want to say to the southern boundary of
Lot #6.
Welton: The Meadows Rd shall be a public local street to the
southern boundary of Lot #6.
Perry: Right.
Chick Collins: I thought early in the meeting you said we would
go through the entire resolution point by point. And if we were
paying attention what was going on then we didn't have an
opportunity to review all 50 or 60 conditions in here. And I have
a number of questions about a number of these items I would like
at least state for the record and then proceed.
I question the designation of the new Meadows Rd as a local street.
I feel it should be designated a collector street since it is
practically a non-stop roadway from the Meadows all the way out to
Hwy #82. And I would like to know where did the designation come
46
PZM4.16.91
from--local? What evidence? Did we have traffic counts? Numbers
at North and 7th? Projected numbers coming out? So I have a real
problem calling it a local street because what it does is changes
the standards required with that particular street.
Now the west end all the streets running east and west are local
streets. Those running north and south are collective streets
emptying into Hwy 82 which is an arterial. And I think whoever
came up with this local should at least demonstrate in some
evidence with some background experience that it will qualify as
a local street.
chuck Roth, Engineering Dept: It is based on traffic counts and
in their traffic mitigation plan the anticipated traffic count
exceeds criteria for local street.
Perry: Our traffic engineer has reviewed that and submitted the
plan.
Welton: The reason why the work "local" is in parenthesis is
because it is the nature of the street that it is not to be turned
into a private street but that it stay a local street. I don't
think the design standards are implied by putting parenthesis
around here that it is a local street and that therefore it
shouldn't meet the standard of a collector street.
Amy: We can take the word "local" out and just say public street.
Welton: That way it can be a collector or any other thing.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to say that the new Meadows
Road shall be a public street to the southern edge of Lot #6.
Roger: I so move.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: #2 is OK. #3 is OK. #4 is OK.
Chick Collins: On #2. I would like to add the legal access to
the homes along Meadow Rd and North st.
Welton: Does anybody have any objections to that?
Perry: Yes.
Amy: We don't feel it is necessary to provide legal access to the
homes along North st. It is not part of this application.
47
PZM4.l6.91
Welton: The only house on North st that has any frontage is
Charlie Marqusee's guest house and that already fronts on 8th st.
Chick: And there are 2 more houses in the middle of block #6 out
there across on the south side of North st which is the City ROW
that access their homes through the alley. Now on the application
submitted for this development, they showed a spur turning off the
new Meadows Rd going in and it caused a resident access road. I
am saying North st should be added to give those people legal
access. It is simple.
Perry: We got a letter from Chuck Brandt representing 2 families,
the Titas and the Poland family who live on the south side of that
North st ROW. And they are currently accessed by an alley. And
they requested an easement. They requested a curb cut. I said
since there is no curb and gutter--no need for a curb cut. If the
city wants to allow you to come across their ROWand tie into this
road which is a public road then great. But if not, it is not in
this application and it is not a request that we are making. It
is not on our property and it is not pertinent to this. It is
definitely something that the applicant and the City should discuss
on a separate level.
Chick: I was just thinking if an applicant has to provide legal
access to the homes on Meadow Rd then those on North st are
affected.
Welton: The difference is that these houses on North st have
traditionally had legal access through the alley. The applicant
is not proposing any change that would restrain their current
access. The only change is that this would give them a second
access. On the Meadows Rd the old Meadows Rd is being turned into
a trail to no longer exist. This is a guarantee that the new
Meadows Rd will continue to provide an access to replace the access
that they no longer have.
Chick: Then I wouid only ask why the applicant shows it on the
final development plan.
Perry: Chuck Brandt called Design Workshop and they put it on the
plat and when we reviewed it we said this isn't in our bailiwick.
Welton: Are there any more problems that you guys have? I hope
none.
Perry: I don't think there is anything else that really needs to
go on.
48
PZM4.16.9l
Collins: I have a question on #6. It states that a subdivision
plat complying with the standards in section 7-1004(d.l) shall be
submitted at least 2 weeks prior to City Council review.
If you look in the regulations in Chapter 24 that condition should
be in effect when it comes to this Commission for review. Then
when it comes to the Council you also include (d.2). If you look
in Resolution 2 of Council when they approve this at conceptual
they made that exact language.
Welton: Chick, this is such detailed minutia of what numbers in
7-1004(d.l) that is exactly the kind of detail that I requested at
the very first meeting when you came up with your list of detailed
problems with this application. Detailed stuff like that cannot
be handled in a public forum using everybody's time to hash out
when (d.l) and (d.2) are appropriate.
Collins: If you put in a condition the condition should at least
agree with what the regulations say in Chapter 24. These
conditions when they were set up in conceptual approval were never
met when this came in with planning. This says 2 weeks prior to
city Council review. If my calendar is correct City Council review
starts--the question is has this condition been met and can I get
a copy of it.
Welton: City Council is going to have 4 reviews that are spaced
out over a month and a half's time.
Perry: Just for the record the rehearsal facility didn't rest
until about an hour ago. It is a little difficult to do a plat
last night. And for Mr. Collins to sit here and say all of these
things have to be done and yet he is out there saying move it here
or get rid of it. It is a moving process to develop this plat and
that is why the code gives you 180 days after final approval of the
plan to get it all finalized and signed off and recorded.
Welton: Do any Commission members have any changes on conditions
of subdivision?
Roger: #7--is roads included in utilities?
Perry: There is a separate condition about the Engineer reviewing
the roads.
Roger: #lo--is it necessary at this point to include the trees to
be replaced equal caliper to replace total caliper being removed.
Welton: That was a representation made last week.
49
PZM4.16.91
Perry: There is an earlier condition that talks on a landscaping
plan with a lot of detail that is to be reviewed.
Roger: OK for #10 I would like to include that the applicant
represent generally a statement that trees will be replaced on the
basis of caliper equalling total caliper of replacement trees.
Then on #16 I would just like to include not only for Meadows Rd
but after Meadows Rd say "and 7th st and 8th st intersections.
Collins: #17. The speed limit shall be reduced to safety
standards as required by the City Engineer. And I am not sure that
the reduced standards in this particular case we are talking about
public safety that this is something that should be determined by
the City Engineer. The road should come to city standards.
Welton: The road is going to be built to standards that are
acceptable to the Engineering Dept and the Engineering Dept are
the experts that we depend on for determining road design and speed
limit. Do you want a committee to determine the speed limit?
Collins: I don't think that the city streets should be subject to
the purview of the City Engineer who keeps changing. We have
standards that are all spelled out in the code--curves, slopes--
Welton: The standards are set up in the code. This is going to
be to reduce the speed standards and make them slower.
Collins: You can't reduce safety considerations.
Welton: We are not reducing safety considerations.
reducing speed.
We are
Collins: Who is going to determine what the speed is? What I am
getting at--there is no background. We are putting in a double
reverse turn.
Caswall: Mr. Chairman, under state law all streets are presumed
to have a certain speed limit unless otherwise changed by the city
Engineer in the jurisdiction which has control over those streets.
There is a presumed speed limit for that street once it is
installed. And that is the legal speed limit by state law. If the
City wishes to lower that speed limit the authority for doing that
rests with the city Engineer after traffic studies based upon
design considerations, curves etc.
Welton: We have gone through all the subdivision conditions. We
have text amendments and does anyone have comments on text
amendments basically outlining the open space zone district and
the wild life preservation zone district.
50
PZM4.l6.91
Roger: #3 under wild life preservation--are we shooting ourselves
in the foot where it says basically surface or underground water
retention facilities except above ground concrete or metal
container.
Perry: Are you saying an above--
Roger: We are accepting concrete or metal containers?
Perry: So are you saying a concrete bridge over the--
Welton: containment means containment. Bridge means bridge.
Amy: You have a good point.
?: Concrete or metal structures are being prohibited.
Roger: That's right. My worry is that that might be construed to
include like a trail bridge over a ditch.
Amy: The other thing we may want to allow for--we are planning on
putting in a bridge and we want to make sure that the language
doesn't include bridges.
MOTION
Roger: I would move to include language which prohibits concrete
or metal in the use of bridges.
Chuck: I would prefer that you didn't tie the design hands in the
possibility that an acceptable mixture of techniques might come up.
Perry: The cat is out of the bag! As you know the Engineering
Dept has requested a stone water detention facility at the northern
end of the race track with an access coming in and then a ditch
going out. We feel that the City is not sticking to it's own
standards here. The requirement is that every utility be placed
underground for the private development. And we concur with that.
We have asked that if the City wants to do something in the sage
meadow that it is a detention structure that that also be
undergrounded.
If it is a natural depression out there and it is filling with
runoff--it is a mud puddle and will destroy the sage and it is
going to have debris in it at times after storms and it is going
to destroy what the city is trying to preserve within that race
track. It is a metal containment or concrete structure it is going
to further destroy what is going on there and we feel that since
51
PZM4.16.91
we are being required to be underground, the City should meet their
own standards that they put on a private applicant and agree to
have only underground easements for storm water detention out there
despite the cost.
Roger: Is that a wild life preservation?
Perry: Yes it is.
Welton: No changes to that. Any other changes?
Roger: What about bridges?
Welton: It doesn't prohibit bridges.
Roth: I just can't agree with that. This is not a utility. A
utility provides a service to a customer and is delivered to that
customer through some kind of vehicle usually a cable, a conduit,
a pipe.
The requirement for the storm water facility out there is for flood
protection for the west end residents. It is done as a conditional
use already and your objections can be heard in the conditional use
hearing and I don't see the necessity of leaving that in there.
Roger: Well, they want to delete it but I disagree with the
premise.
MOTION
Roger: I will move to delete the exception in the
preservation district paragraph #3.
wild life
Bruce seconded the motion.
Fred: I would just like to correct what Chuck is suggesting that
he finds something different in what a facility is and a detention
structure.
I would remind those of you who were sitting on the Commission at
the time Little Nell project was approved and it was required of
the applicant at that time to hollow out the bottom of Little Nell
and put a detention structure in that is a detention basin only.
And it provides protection for those residents in that portion of
the town. And the City required the private sector to do that and
I would suggest that the preservation of this particular area both
from a viewplane as well as keeping with that precedent that we set
all across this town that you retain the language that is already
there.
52
PZM4.16.91
Caswall: This is a very important issue from the applicant's point
of view and from the City's point of view. As some of you mayor
may not know EPA standards regarding site runoff are going to be
taking effect in Aspen over the course of the next five or ten
years. This particular site has been identified on the master
drainage plan for the city for over 20 years and the city of Aspen
has repeatedly, over the years, just ignored the drainage problems
that the City has.
The drainage requirements and standards of EPA are going to apply
to the city of Aspen and this area has again for 20 years been
designated as the last place in the City to take care of this
because all of the water that is running down the City is now
running into Castle Creek and running into the Roaring Fork River.
As you may know the Roaring Fork River was just upgraded as to the
class of river that it is in terms of it's purity. EPA is going
to be allover the City if you foreclose even the possibility of
utilizing this property for some aesthetic reason for drainage.
If you think we have got problems at the superfund site right now,
you wait until 5 or 10 years when EPA comes down on us for the fact
that we are polluting Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork River and
the City has made a conscious decision to foreclose any possibility
to use this piece of property to litigate that fact. It is an
important public issue.
Welton: Jed, it is an important public issue and the motion before
us and has a second is to delete "above ground concrete metal
containment structures" from that portion of the exception.
It says "A conditional use for surface or underground storm water
detention facility" which the applicant does not have a problem
with. What the applicant does have a problem with is that the City
should be able to come in and build something above ground out of
concrete or metal when they won't let a private applicant do that.
It has to be underground for a private applicant.
Chuck: That is miSleading. Their own site drainage on this
property is above grade. You have got a pond that is 1 acre for
your own site drainage. The Little Nell situation was for their
particular site only.
Perry: I think you are misinterpreting this. What this says is
"Surface or underground storm water detention facilities". What
we would like is only underground as a conditional use. This
condition says "Except there shall be no above ground concrete or
metal containment structures".
Welton: This is what I want. That is 180 degrees from what
Roger's motion states. Roger's motion--
53
PZM4.l6.91
Perry: Is to eliminate that exception.
Roger: That is right.
Richard: I would like to remind the commission that this is a new
zone district being created and to apply it across the board to
all areas of the City where it might be implemented and again it
is a conditional use. Something that whatever is proposed needs
to be hashed out with the property owners. I support Roger's
motion.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second.
Roger: The motion is to remove the language "except above ground
concrete or metal containment" from sub paragraph 3 the lateral
preservation zone district. And what that does is to prevent
prohibiting that and putting it into the conditional use column.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Welton.
LIMIT TO GMOS EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
Richard: The map amendments here--page 15 and 16 I have some
questions about the way the map is presently drawn the different
zone districts in that basically you have between the parts of the
campus is all zoned academic except for one small area--
Gideon: It is the exiting Anderson Park, Richard.
Richard: OK. It is designated as open space. And again it is my
concern that as long as it is zoned academic can they come back in
and apply for buildings throughout those areas that are zoned
academic.
Gideon: We are trying to preserve options for the future. In
other words we are designating places that can never be built but
the academic portions there has to be an opportunity over the next
10 to 20 years for the non-profits to come back in here to be able
to present you a reason why the SPA should be changed and not to
be precluded by the lack of zoning capabilities. We need to have
some academic left for our future needs.
Welton: Richard, to me it is kind of a mute point. If it is zoned
open space or--they can come back in and ask for re-zoning as part
of an SPA amendment. So it really makes very little difference
whether the line is here or there. The process is not going to be
any simpler no matter where the line is.
Richard: I would prefer to have this all open space.
54
PZM4.16.9l
Perry: It conforms to the masterplan which both verbally and on
the maps outline the areas that they wanted to have open space.
And then we drew up the proposed wildlife preservation and open
space zone districts to make sure that that conservation land was
preserved as wildlife preservation and the race track which, of
course, now won't be.
Welton: On page 16 the "Be it further resolved" the Planning
Office insert the numbers in the proper slot. We have already
discussed the conditional use for the 4 affordable housing units.
We have also done the parking for the A academic zone district.
MOTION
Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #91-10 as amended to be signed
by the Chairman when ready.
Bruce seconded the motion.
Collins: I object to the variations amendment which now brings in
design standards of section 7-1004 of the streets. That is on page
15. And the last item on page 19, number 10 where they refer to
the T section itself and I think this has been a difficulty in this
whole process. Is it a T or not a T?
Roger: It is not a T. And that is already deleted.
Welton: It was deleted an hour and a half ago.
There is a motion on the floor and a second.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard Compton.
Kim: I would like to enter this public notice into the record.
(attached in record)
Welton: The public hearing is officially out of the hands of the
Planning & zoning commission.
I am officially resigned!
LILY REID SPECIAL REVIEW AND REOUEST FOR GMOS EXEMPTION
Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record.
Welton: Asked the applicant if they had questions regarding the
conditions.
?: The basic design strategy of course is to move the Lily Reid
bldg to the corner and to create a commercial bldg as background
55
PZM4.16.91
and surrounding it. The Lily Reid building will be completely
restored to it's original state. That does a couple of things.
#1 it permeates the Lily Reid bldg. Instead of being seen between
2 overscaled buildings as a single facade we now see it in all it's
3 dimensions with pedestrian space around it. Secondly the way we
have used the corner we have created a very special corner in Aspen
relating to the open space here and creating pedestrian space
around the Lily Reid bldg and around the corner. It also, by
putting the Lily Reed bldg here, helps create a transition from the
scale of the downtown to the scale of the residential areas.
In fact paring it up the Lily Reid with the victorian on the corner
kind of sentinels the transition. As well the scale of the city
has been brought down to the residential. As well the building has
been designed to step back to allow sun and to also give a relief
background for the lower scale Lily Reed bldg.
We have reviewed this with HPC in terms of materials and colors.
They were very excited about it and supportive of it and, in a
nutshell, the things that we talked about we came through on in the
final form of the architecture.
? Is that a parapet on top of whatever that is there?
looking at a gable there?
Am I
?: It is the elevator. It is where the elevator comes up instead-
Roxanne: That was added at final.
?: It was on the original model as originally shown to you.
Sara: How do you get to downstairs? To the basement.
?: The stair up to the second levels here and
this right there directly off the plaza level.
elevator at this location is straight down.
the stair down is
And of course the
Roger: I am interested in the service to it. Is there a service
access to a potential restaurant in the basement?
?: Service access directly to a service elevator right up here
that goes directly to the basement. It does not go up. It goes
down to--that is strictly service. There is another elevator--
passenger.
Roger: Because we are reducing the service area how are you going
to handle the trash? But before I get to that--service to the
retail facilities in the Lily Reed house. It looks like it is from
the alley through this space.
56
PZM4.16.9l
?: No. Lily Reed to what extent this is a 600ft--
Roger: Right. I assume it is going to be a T-shirt shop or
something or whatever retail space or ice cream parlor or what have
you. How are you planning service to the retail faciuity?
?: It will be directly off here. It can be brought from the
location back here through the building.
Roger: That is what we would prefer. Is there an entrance to that
facility that they can access off that little mall in the back as
opposed to coming around to the front door?
?: Is there a rear entrance to this building? There is a side
access. It is off the sidewalk there. We went through this with
HPC and they did not want to allow us any other openings than what
is already there.
Roger: If HPC says no other doors but those 2 doors, OK. But I
want it put on the record that service to that should be off of
the alley and not off the street. My worry is that service is
going to be off the street where that door is to Monarch. So can
you confirm that the service is going to be through--
?: It can be operational requirement if that is part of the deal
you make with them.
Welton: Would you like to make that a condition #11 that service
access to Lily Reed House be from the alley through the house?
Gideon: OK.
There are 2 conditions I would like to talk about. #6 we would
like some ability to just put in there if it is required by the
code we would like an opportunity to look into that to see whether
in fact we are required to give up the well and so we would like
the ability to check that out.
Welton: Asked if there any objections to adding to the end of #6
"If required by code".
Gideon:
employee
problems
And then #1. But we
housing at one time.
with #1 through #11.
are going to wait to discuss the
Then we don't have any other
MOTION
Welton: There is 3 items to be taken tonight. The first is I
would entertain a motion to move to approve the special review for
the reduction in open space and utility trash service area with the
57
PZM4.16.91
conditions the same as the Planning Office memo dated April 16,
1991 with condition #6 having it required by code as the end of it
and condition #11 be added that service to the Lily Reid house as
being off the alley and not from the street.
Roger: I will so move.
Bruce seconded the motion.
Sara: Asked about snowmelt and the expense.
Welton: It is not that expensive. When it comes right down to it
the actual cost can be less than comparable to hiring somebody
driving from Rifle to do the shoveling.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion.
Welton: The next approval is for GMQS exemption for expansion of
an historic landmark pending the interpretation of City Council.
MOTION
Roger: I so move.
Welton asked the applicant if they had any problem with those
condition.
Gideon: #3 which again we talk about 8 and I need to talk about
on the housing because there are some other things that we are
going to discuss later.
Welton: I think I may have a way of handling that item once we
get to the approval.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: It seems like you are trying to do some things that are
outside of the approved guidelines of the Housing Authority. Now
anybody who can figure out what the approved guidelines of the
Housing Authority are has got to be a genius. Their
qualifications, their guidelines, the size of the units, the type
of housing is so chameleon-like that I--when I deal with my clients
I say "The only thing you can do is sit down with them at least a
half dozen times and you hash out on approved plan with the Housing
Authority because you can't anticipate from reading anything what
the rules are going to say as to what is approvable and what is
not".
Sara: Do they have to mitigate employees for what is going to get
landmark designation?
58
PZM4.16.91
Welton: There is a formula for reduction in the mitigation if you
are an historic landmark. You are not particularly let off scott
free for historic landmarks. You have a percentage.
I think that we approve employee affordable housing for 8 employees
the configuration of which shall be negotiated between the
applicant and the Housing Authority to the satisfaction of the
Housing Authority. will something like that work?
Amy: The configuration of the housing in terms of meeting the
guidelines and square footage of certain spaces is the Housing
Authority's. And the number of units based on that comes from the
Housing Authority. Over and above that when there is a new
proposal we have a problem with quality of life in terms of in the
middle of a building and elevator shaft and no windows. That is
a planning issue that we are bringing it up with the Housing
Authority.
Welton: I am saying let's house the people--let's do it in a form
acceptable to the Housing Authority in a negotiated forum with the
applicant. And I don't think there has ever been a criteria that
we judge something based on the quality.
Gideon: We put it on the second floor which I think is a very
important step that we don't seem to be getting credit for.
Welton: I have no problem with the housing experts being able to
evaluate the housing. And if we can pass on to them recommendation
that 8 people be housed that the guidelines be low and moderate and
that these people be qualified for the housing that they occupy
and not be overqualified for the housing they occupy. And that the
quality of the living experience be improved and that the relative
number of kitchens, common spaces, square feet per person be
negotiated with the Housing Authority so as to maximize the living
ability--the realistic habitability of those units.
One of the goals of that motion is to be able to hire young people
out of business school or whatever--people who like me 18 years
ago--ski bums who don't mind sharing or doubling up for one season.
He wants to provide one unit of dormitory housing so that it is
really cheap housing for recent college graduates that are going
to working in the retail space down below.
Gideon: One of the suggestions that the Housing Office made to us
was to possibly look at an option to the dorm. The Housing
Authority hasn't dealt with this. This was staff. We were going
to go to the Housing Authority. One of the requests that they have
is that we possibly take the 300 extra feet--we have a 1.4 to 7 to
1 FAR. If they take the extra 300ft and we apply that to the
59
PZM4.l6.91
employee housing that gives us options of providing a different mix
than dorms. And they would like us to look at that. We would be
happy to go to the Housing Authority and discuss with them if you
make the change to 1.5 to 1 which is that 300ft understanding that
it all has to go tot he employee housing.
Then we can sit with the Housing Authority and try to come up with
a discussion as to the validity of dorms vs another mix that they
seem to be talking about. So if you could change that and also
change the #3 that the applicant shall provide housing mitigation
for the required number of employees because it may be 8, it may
be 7. It may be 8 and 1/2 depending on the configuration that we
can go to the Housing Authority and work with them in terms of
coming up with a solution for that. If you make those changes we
can work with them.
If we add 300sqft to the whole building that would all go to the
employee housing. Then you get a different mix in terms of dorm
and single families and others. We don I t have to change the
structure in any way to the effect of the historic approval.
Welton: When we went through the first approval didn't you ask
for some flexibility in that FAR?
There was no answer on this.
Welton: In order to improve the quality of the employee housing
experience would the person who made the motion to approve the
special review for reduction of open space and trash utility
service area change condition #1 to read "The floor area of the
project shall not exceed 1.5 to 1 provided the extra square footage
be used entirely for employee housing".
Roger: I will move to reconsider the previous motion concerning
the utility trash area.
Bruce: I amend my second.
Richard: What is allowable under the HPC approval for floor area.
What is allowable on the site for FAR?
Gideon: 1.5 to 1 by right. 2 to 1 by special review.
Welton: And the 2 to 1 is if they provide employee housing. They
are already doing that and not asking for--
Roger: I had moved to reconsider the previous motion procedurally
so that we can change that.
60
PZM4.16.9l
Welton:
motion.
All of those in favor of reconsidering the previews
Everyone voted in favor of this.
MOTION
Roger: I move to modify the motion concerning the utility and
trash area condition #1 to change from 1.5 to 1--the addition of
300sqft being devoted entirely to affordable housing.
Gideon: And also in #3--the 8 may change to whatever is
appropriate.
Roger: That is a different motion.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Roger: I will move to reconsider the motion concerning GMQS.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Roger: I move to amend the motion concerning GMQS exemption to
change condition #3 to indicate "The applicant shall provide
housing mitigation for the required number of employees".
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: The last part is that basically left the negotiation
skills of the applicant and the Housing Authority and the Planning
Dept to come up with improved liveability of the employee housing
units and appropriate mix of tenant and price guideline occupancy.
Appropriate and legal room dimensions, common space, living room
square footages provided by the housing guidelines that is a
housing plan acceptable to the Planning Office and the Housing
Authority prior to City Council.
Gideon: The bottom line is we still go to Council if we don't
agree with the Housing Authority or with the Planning Office.
Let's say the Housing Authority agrees with us but the Planning
Office doesn't. We still have the ability to go to Council who
makes the decision.
Welton: That's right. It is the Council's decision. We are only
recommending that you improve your plan.
61
"..
PZM4.16.91
Roger: I would like to include in that motion the indication that
we don't find dormitory housing adverse or anything like that.
Welton: There is a skeleton of a motion floating in the air if
somebody would make the motion.
MOTION
Richard: I move to recommend approval of an affordable housing
mitigation program which will be worked out between the applicant,
Planning Office and Housing Authority in such a way that it
complies with the Housing Authority guidelines for affordable
housing and would be appropriate mix of tenant and price guidelines
of occupancy and makes an attempt to improve the quality of the
living experience. Not intended to prohibit dormitory housing.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: Barring any objections the meeting is adjourned.
Time was 8:55pm.
62