Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930608 ~.l(U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8. 1993 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. David Brown and Tim Mooney arrived shortly after roll call. Bruce Kerr was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: I just walked across the Hopkins Street Bridge. There is another foundation in that bank. Diane: That is for the McFarlins. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. MAROON CREEK RANCH GOLF COURSE WATER POLICY Jasmine opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben, Planning, made presentation as attached in record. After some discussion-- Cindy: In this memo I did not bring up a lot of things. A lot of it were issues that have recently been dealt with with Council in terms of their policy. Sara: But for us to comment on it we should be educated. Jasmine: We are all having a real difficult time coming to grips with this memo. The memo makes it sound as though we are supposed to comment on the applicability of the water policies to this particular project which we are not familiar with. without the kind of information and kind of questions that Sara, David and Richard have been asking, we really can't make an appropriate comment. When you come right down to it our comments regarding the applicability of the City water policy to the Maroon Creek Ranch are totally irrelevant because it is a done deal anyway. I think that maybe the best thing for us to do would be to comment on the policy in general, not as a part of Maroon Creek Ranch because that is really not in our jurisdiction at this point. By the time it does come into our jurisdiction, if it ever does, it will be too late anyway. I think it would be more helpful for us and for Council to discuss PZM6.8.93 the water policy in general and not comment on the Maroon Creek Ranch because we don't have enough information. And I think we might want another meeting on this to go into more detail about the water policy based on some of the questions that were asked. As Sara said I am not sure what we are supposed to be doing. And what it seems we are supposed to be doing based on the memo we really can't do because we don't have enough information. Richard: Looking at this freshly and not in the light of the history that has gone before in terms of the agreement that was attempted to be made and the former policy of the city I don't see this development as being consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. It is weighted very heavily towards high- end second home residential development which is not a large part of what the city wants to create. So that in looking at this area as an area to be annexed in the future it really doesn't fit with the direction we are trying to take the city. And extending water service to this development is, in effect, subsidizing an exclusive golf course and club development. Looking at it clean I would recommend against extending the water to an area in the County that is not contributing actively to the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. In fact it is putting us deeper in the hole in terms of affordable housing. It is creating a lot of low-paying service jobs which will put more people on the highway of which we have seen a lot of already. Roger: I agree almost completely with Richard almost point for poin~. My problem is with the policy of extending City water serv1ce to an area that is not contiguous to the City and can be annexed. We just never know when that other piece of property, I hope it is just one piece of property, between the City and this piece of property will be annexed, if ever. I think when that occurs that such a development should come to the City with a lot more within the guidelines. Jasmine asked for public comment. There were no comments. Jasmine: There are several members of the Commission who do not feel that the extension to the Maroon Creek Ranch is in conformance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. We can state that one way or the other or say that it is irrelevant. The Commission is very uncomfortable with this sort of situation. We are being asked to sanction or not sanction something where our sanction is meaningless. And we don't like doing that. David: I do feel there is enough information in here. There is I~ more than enough capacity to serve this project. It seems that with this area 6 from the financial standpoint that if the business 2 PZM6.8.93 deal were to be struck between the developer and the city that it favors the city. The policy is very clear that that is one of the intents of extension of water lines. That to create business deals and service arrangements that do financially pay for the city. And I think that is a reasonable policy. I think the policy rules are very clear. I only agree with Richard to the point that from the mixed standpoint it is inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan in as much as 2/3rd of the dwelling units as proposed are private and 1/3rd is affordable which is the opposite of the Aspen Area Community Plan. However when we did the Plan we took this project into consideration. It doesn't appear as if holding water to this particular development out as a carrot for changing goals or criteria--it just doesn't seem at this point because of these other options that the developer appears as presented in this meeting to have water service that that is going to help the City or this community achieve the goals of the Plan or get closer to those goals. I think that inasmuch as this is a resort community the enhancement of a resort draw in a golf course is very much a desireable entity to enhance our summer tourism business. I think a lot of these homes may find their way to locals even the free market mix. And part of the Plan is to create a balance between resort and community. I think it would be to the City'S best interest to extend water service to create a financial structure for that water service that would benefit the city and at some point annex the land between the City and the Airport Business Center to create a larger service area. Obviously at build-out we would never reach full service capacity that the City has for water delivery. So I find this consistent with the policy as stated in the memo. MOTION David: and the use for I move based on the information presented at this meeting facts stated in this memo to approve the proposed extension water to the Maroon Creek Ranch. Richard seconded the motion. "-.. Roger: I don't find the consistency of the present AACP. However I don't want to stop this project because I consider it a done deal at this point. And I think that is what I prefer reflecting back to the City Council. This project is a done deal. I think it is time to review this policy for other lands that would occur in this apparently service area #6. And I could support a motion that gets 3 PZM6.8.93 that feeling across. I cannot support this motion. Sara: Would you consider an addition to the motion that the language contained-- NEW MOTION David: Based on the information presented in memorandum at this meeting I move to propose extension of water service to the Maroon Creek Ranch. And with the condition that no extension of service shall be approved without prior execution of water service agreement incorporating contractual obligation and prior to the annex of the property benefited by the water service ,to the City of Aspen as such property is contiguous or becomes contiguous to the city and the City determines such annexation as desireable. Roger: I would also like to indicate for future policy that the property should be contiguous to the City so that it can be annexed. I don't like this leapfrogging of the water. It is time to say if they are going to benefit from City services they should be in the City. David: I think that would be a good series of meetings to set up. What is the annexation policy in every direction. Roger: Because of the system there is considerable development occurring that is outside of the purview of the City but has an immediate effect on the city. And our little bit of input to the County Commissioners or County P&Z is virtually insignificant. It doesn't mean a damned thing. Whatever we say they will just go ahead and do what they want to do. And if this is going to continue--development is going to occur we should be a party into directing some of that development to the goals of the AACP. But I will support the motion. Roll call vote. Tim, abstain, Roger, yes, David, yes, Richard, no, Sara, yes, Jasmine, no. Motion carried. Jasmine closed the public hearing. RIO GRAND MASTER PLAN ADOPTION Jasmine opened the public hearing. 4 PZM6.8.93 Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Roger: As long as we understand that some of these things are temporary I can live with it. Sometimes the written word in a plan like this tends to get cast in cement. And we have to know up front that these are recommended action plans and that some of these may be temporary uses. Leslie: And some of these may never happen. Jasmine then asked for public comment. Jon Busch: I am puzzled by the site B map in that you indicate a dotted area as possible recycle snowmelter. Which is fine. It is in an even greater state of limbo as is the trolley barn which at least has a square footage assigned to it and has been moved around various places on the site. So why is it that a possible trolley barn isn't on the map when a possible snowmelter is? Leslie: I will make sure that the individual maps for siting and consistent with our general maps that are adopted. So what it would say would be-- Roger: Why not just remove on that 13 map--just remove that so- called foot print. And just if you want to make it "possible recycle snowmelter/trolley barn. Leslie: I will just make it consistent. Howard Bass: On page 14 locate a central community services--is this limited strictly to transportation or would it allow if the train didn't happen and they decided they did need a new town hall that it could be built on that site? Leslie: The emphasis on site B is that it was purchased with transportation funds. So the idea is that our transportation related goal should be accomplished first before we put anything permanent on that site. Bass: We own one of the buildings that adjoin the property where it says Bass/Obermeyer. And we have been talking to the City for a number of years about the possibility of using some of that property and doing some exchanges because we own Bleeker Street and you own our parking. It has just been that way for years. And I would like this to possibly reflect the possibility of doing something that this isn't totally blocked out so that 6 months from now we come to talk about it and somebody says "Oh no, Planning did not provide for that at all". I would like for that not to be set in stone as far as the town's 5 PZM6.8.93 ability to be able to negotiate something with us. Leslie: So on page 18 where we talk about recommended action for site B. I list 17 items. I will consider an 18th item that says "city has expressed the desire to negotiate with the owners of the Bass/Obermeyer for the parking swap or something like that". Bass: That is great. There being no further public comments-- MOTION Roger: I move to adopt the Rio Grande Master Plan as amended which will include the 18th condition regarding the Bass/Obermeyer condition. Leslie: I have 3 items. Change the buffer language to transition zone and make my 2 individual maps consistent with the general Land Use map and then add an 18th recommendation for the site negotiation on the Bass/Obermeyer property. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #93-9 of the Planning & Zoning commission adopting the Rio Grande Master Plan. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public hearing. EARLY LEARNING CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Jasmine opened the public hearing. David stated a possibility of conflict of interest. After discussion it was decided by the members there was no problem with David taking part in this hearing. Leslie then made presentation as attached in record. Affidavit of posting is in packet as part of the application. In the packet there are 2 letters from neighbors. I have since received 3 other letters from neighbors. Leslie then read the 3 letters into the record. The first letter was from Richard Horvitz stating his objections to the Early Learning Center. The second letter was from Ed Grosse also stating his objections to the '",..,-~ 6 PZM6.8.93 Early Learning Center. The third letter was from William Lloyd Davis also stating his objections to the Early Learning Center. (All attached in record) S Leslie then stated she received 2 phone calls. One from J:i1Q: /J_arbourough stating that daytime use was OK. Night time use not OK and not conducive with the historic use of the building. A phone call from Susan West stating her concerns about traffic, congestion and the late night activity. And then Bruce Kerr to be passed on to you--he cannot be at the meeting tonight--his hours of recommendation would be "Dark or 7:00 whichever comes first". Jasmine: We do have in our packet a letter from Katherine Levitz Lee stating her concerns regarding the Early Learning Center. Alice Davis: regarding the will continue in record) Read into record letter from the Wildwood School change in bus stop stating their hope that the City the present location for their bus stop. (attached Davis then made presentation on behalf of the Early Learning Center as attached in record. David: What is Aspen Interactive? What do they do? ?: Aspen Interactive has been set up to produce educational interactive on a media CDI materials. What we are doing is working with the non-profits like MAA, Anderson Ranch to utilize their resources so that there can be a greater outreach of what they normally do during the summer. It is a co-operative educational venture using this new technology to try to expand the resources. CDI looks like a CD audio. It is the same size disc but it carries a picture and text animation. Most of it is research and developing program content working with people connected with these institutions to develop new kinds of education programs. It is a combination of research, program development and workshops. Jed Caswall, City Attorney: Made some comments but mumble --- --- Richard: I think Jed's comments are very appropriate but we need to consider this as the appropriate use of the building and hours of use of the building and not be driven by financial needs of the applicant. The fact that the building is being underutilized at this point and I think it is to the public interest to make full appropriate use of it and we need to consider it on that basis. You have asked for extension to 10:00 P.M. What kinds of use would be happening between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00 P.M.? If it is just Ed and his office that is one thing. If it is people coming 7 PZM6.8.93 in for all different kinds of evening classes, that is a different question. Davis: That is why we tried to make it education uses and the traditional classroom use. Ed is one of the type of uses that we would like to see go to 10:00. The other like yoga classes or ballet classes--the children's classes are over by 8:30. The other uses would be things like Aspen Ridiculous Theatre that only uses it at night when they have to rehearse for a performance. Roger: I would like to get back on the land use issues and try to have this operate as close as possible to what it did as a school, it's hours of operation and the number of people there. An idea for guidelines for them is possibly if we could come up with a scale of before 6: 00 there is no restriction of the number of people. Between 6 and 8:30 no more than a total of 20 people. After 8:30 to 10:00 P.M. the absolute limit no more than 5 people. This is just an idea. Does that sort of thing seem to work from the ELC poi~t of view and from the community point of view? Davis: Assuming that the numbers are left blank. probably work. Historically the yellow brick was used irregularly until 10:00. It would be used 2 to 3 times a week for aerobics class for a quarter. And then maybe skip a quarter and do it again another quarter. The uses that were in the evening were gymnastics, basketball, aerobics, art classes, City Recreation uses such as adults and children Rec program. That could It was heavily used in the summer for writer's Conference, MAA, Design Conference and hockey school classes. Jasmine then opened the floor for public comment. Katherine Lee: I am very, very opposed to 8:30 seven days a week. And I have to say that they have not been a good neighbor. Every time the building has been used at night which it has been used frequently before this approval, my Son has been awoken at night with the yelling and screaming and cars slamming doors and it has really been a very, very bad situation. Regarding the wildwood bus situation, I stand there every day to pick up my Son. He doesn't go to wildwood. But the bus situation there is a highly dangerous. I know they are trying to do the best job they can with where they are unloading but it is not a good loading situation on Bleeker Street. One thing that really bothers me is the fact that housing/daycare fund should be funding in my opinion. If this building needs more 8 PZM6.8.93 income I feel that that fund is there to subsidize. Supposedly what I was told tax-wise that is to help subsidize some of the ELC. And I feel it would be appropriate to rent the rest of the building during the day if there is a need but I do not think it is at all appropriate under an R-6 zoning to try to rent the building at night time. All of the neighbors who I have talked to are totally opposed to night time use. It is just too intense. We are trying to be good neighbors to the ELC too but we would like to request that we need a break. They just can't operate all night long at all hours. There has got to be a janitor in there cleaning up. We just feel that 10:00 at night is just way too excessive. And we feel that they should be able to make their budget during the day and we would be more than willing to try to help them come up with ways to do that. And whether that is going back to City Council and requesting more funding to housing daycare. I think that is more appropriate. I think the school district could possibly come in and make an adjustment to the cost due to the fact that they have handicapped children that they are legally responsible for that are in this building. We are still an R-6 neighborhood. That building exists in an R- 6 zone district and we are really here requesting you all to be trusted. We have very little recourse here. To just let them have open season over there at all hours is just destroying the neighborhood. Robert Siegel: I live across the street from the front door which puts us in the highest impact. As a compromise I wouldn't hold it to educational during the day if that is what it takes to meet their monthly expenses. I disagree with what Alice wrote about a traffic impact. At the moment we have a traffic impact in the morning and we have one in the afternoon. We have nothing in the daytime. If you go ahead and do this late night deal, we will have 2 sets of traffic impact. We will have another set of coming and another set of going. Our bedrooms face that door on the street. Being an historic house we are not allowed to reconfigure our house. So our bedrooms are pretty much locked where they are. We find also that with these evening classes and the evening things that are going on these people do spill out into the street and they do continue whatever discussions that they had started during their class. They are very animated. They slam doors. This is why we disagree with this 25%. The number is not important whether they are in the basement or on the first floor. That is not where " 9 PZM6.8.93 the issue comes. The issue comes when they spill out into the street when they are done. That is where the impact comes from. Ed Grosse and I have been having a running battle via the Police Dept with the basketball players which runs up until dark virtually 7 nights a week. We already have a huge noise impact. And I would urge that you strike the paraphrasings of all of us relating to Barb Tarbet because I also had a conversation with her and got a completely different set of answers than what Alice just mentioned. So I think all of what was said quoting her should be stricken unless she comes here in person and speaks to you. All the newspapers have said only 27% of the west end is occupied by full timers. out of that 27% I guess every block surrounding the school happens to be full timers--First, Garmisch, Bleeker and Hallam. That is where all your full timers happen to live--the big part of that 27%. And we would ask that you give us a break from all the traffic. We all have little kids under 8 year old kids. We have enough problem with people who don't seem to understand that it is a 15 MPH in the residential zone and just go whipping through there. When they have their kids in the car they drive slowly. When the kid gets dropped off, they turn into the mad commuter and zip away at 25 MPH. stop signs are optional. As far as the wildwood bus goes if you decide that the Bleeker local is inappropriate you would have no problem relocating it to that Garmisch Street side where that little sand pile is. ?: I live at 121 West Bleeker. My concerns are the traffic all around there. They are backing up. There are little children everywhere. The Wildwood bus in the morning is like a zoo. They are allover my property. There are people there. They let their dogs out to pee and everything else on my lawn while they are there. As far as the school goes my concerns are with people when they come out. At 10:00 at night if these people who have taken Tie Chee, meditation, teach the Mexicans to speak English, Alcoholics Anonymous--anything like that which may go under some of these rules right here, are coming out and they are having a discussion and maybe sitting down on my lawn smoking a joint afterward. These are the problems I have. I have 2 young children. I have a husband that works in another state half the time. So I am alone a lot. And I just don't want people late at night around my home. I have a Chinese restaurant behind me but they have been very good about everything. with this I do see all the cars coming and parking and it is a definite problem. I know the neighbors here. We put that fence up around the school so that we would have some 10 , PZM6.8.93 privacy that way. But the parking is outside of it. Phoebe Ryerson: 40 years ago we set up with the Community Center in winetka a child care center. It worked then and it is still working. It is great and there is of course the neighborhood problem and maybe you can come around to daytime use till 7:00. But it is the nicest part of a community to face the fact that lots of the young residents have to live down valley and would rather have their children near. They must have that safety of the hours that they are required to work here. They need help along that way and it is very costly. This is a long term concern that one community I know has continued to do for many, many years. And we should do it here. George victnzi: I live cati-corner from the school. First of all I think it is very important we all sympathize and empathize with the problems of the ELC. It is a great community asset. I think it is your charge here today to rule on the land use issues and the pluses and minuses of their request. One of the major concerns and goals of the Community Plan is to preserve neighborhoods and to preserve neighbors. We are rapidly losing people like myself, people that have lived here, people that are part of the community, a lot of people here with children. The impacts of just adding up everything to a point where people are saying "That's enough". At what point does the traffic get to be too much. The noise gets to be too much. Pollution. This is what is ruining the neighborhood. It has been a very good neighborhood. We raised $8,000 totally from our own funds and replaced the fence totally at our own voluntary decision. Virtually all the surrounding neighbors of the school--the ones who are directly around it--are against night use. That is a major concern. We don't have a problem with day use. The problem is cars, noise, doors slamming and people talking. The use such as proposed, that is an office use. We can really stretch this to educationally related but it really is an office use. An office use is different than an educational use. An office has people coming to visit people that work there. A lot of in-and- out. More than an educational use where people come all at one time and they leave all at one time. The school as it stood before--it started at 8:00 or so and ends at 3:30 with an occasional night use which we all knew. Now the use is up to 6:00. So it is a longer endurance. That is not a problem. If you go past the existing hours it creates a whole different set of people coming in and people going out. All the r trips in and all the trips out--the night use with people in a hurry. It is a lot more traffic and a lot more noise. 11 PZM6.8.93 The existing bus for wildwood creates a lot more traffic in the residential neighborhood. All those cars that come in to bring their kids and have to leave. Then come to pick up their kids. It is on Bleeker street. Bleeker is a busy street as it is and it is a real problem. I ride my bike through there all the time. Sometimes I can't even get through on my bike. In this traffic mitigation plan we would like to be part of that. It seems like a lot of these things are approved and then something else is going to be contingent and the neighbors who are affected are not part of that process. We would like to be part of that process of whatever mitigation plan. We are happy to work with the ELC to solve these problems. I really have a problem--and this happens a lot at these meetings. We have a packet. We have a memo and then at the last minute a lot of new definitions are brought in that we haven't had time to analyze. with the extended definition of what the approved uses are I would just like to say I would like to keep it to the original uses which were quite restricted to educational uses. The opening up to these other uses just is going to create a lot more traffic. The bottom line is we really would like to support the ELC but only on a day use basis. And anything expanded into evening would really be a negative impact on the neighborhood. It would be an increased impact which we haven't had before and we really would not want now. David ~ It just comes down to a pretty simple issue. We are trying to be good neighbors. We would like to work out all of these issues with the residents of that neighborhood and I believe we can reach some compromises. But every restriction that is put on the way we might be able to use that building other than the restrictions we have placed on it ourselves as to being compatible to daycare and child care and educational uses will simply make it more difficult to the ELC to survive. It is currently the only child care facility at this end of the valley that is providing childcare for working families that provides child care until the end of the day. That provides child care 12 months a year without any breaks at Christmas, Spring break or summertime. If that facility has to close because of the burden of supporting that building then there is going to be a huge impact far beyond the neighbors in that 4 square block area--on this entire valley of people who are no longer going to be able to have safe, adequate care for their children when they have to go to work every day. - 12 The other house on that block is empty most of the time. We do have meetings--parent meetings and lectures that go till 9:00 or 9:30 and I know that we have slammed our car doors and that we have taken our conversations out into the street in the evening. And we weren't really aware of the impact that it was having on the neighborhood. Also the way that we have had our drop-off and our pick-up in the afternoon has been chaotic. And with the new plan of having the dropoff at the other end of the building and having it be much more focused in one area would actually work better for all of us. So being aware of what the complaints are before it comes to a crisis is all part of the communication. If the hours are restricted to 8:30 then that would mean that we wouldn't be able to have the occasional meetings once a month our Board meetings or something like that. Maybe there could be exceptions. As far as renting out the building for daytime use only, you are not going to get too many people in there that are going to be willing to have crying babies. It is not feasible to think that we are going to have a wide range of tenants that are going to be able to incorporate whatever they are doing into a daycare center. As far as the good neighbor part and the traffic part at the Waldorf School we are more than willing to change our bad habits and want to be good neighbors. And we will pull our shades in the evening so that florescent lights don't shine. Robin VanDomlin: It is a marvelous school. It is just coming to our attention now that the neighbors are having a problem with the bus stop and the traffic. I think wildwood would be very willing too to work with a committee of parents and other people who are doing dropoffs there to hear what the needs are and educate our parents to appropriate conditions that the neighbors feel are necessary for that particular area. Chuck Brandt: I am on the school board and, yes, the school district would like very much to see the ELC succeed and continue. We know that children who attend the school are prepared education- ally, emotionally and socially to enter the elementary school. So that is a very important service for the community. 13 PZM6.8.93 I think that the economics are intertwined in this situation with the land use situation. There is a limit to how far the City is willing to support financially the ELC. So it has had to turn to other uses in that building. And they have tried to seek other uses that are compatible. I urge you to approve the application. Siegle: The neighbors here have no problem whatsoever with the little kids with the ELC. It is a fine institution. The kids are great. Their parents are a different ball game. They leave their engines running for 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes. I have discussed this with Elyse and she has sent out numerous memos to the parents and they ignore them routinely. I would think that as the most affected neighbor, being at the front door directly at the front door, by way of compromise I would say--spend $1,500 bucks and put up a block wall inside there and partition the school and then don't restrict yourself to any kind of special daytime uses that have to be related to education. Let a real estate office go in there or whatever you want in that west end of the building if that will avoid night time use. As a way of compromise whatever it takes to keep them from using it after dark with the exception of your once-a-month meetings-- your board meetings that's not a big to do. Whatever it would take to keep people from that whole second set of impact. Ultimately what we can see is CMC making out 2 or 3 rooms for a night 8 to 10:00 class which would create another 20 or 30 cars slamming doors over there. Whatever you have to do by way of not restricting them during the daytime as far as who their tenants can be--whatever you can do to raise money if the city won't hold you up then do whatever you have to do as long as it is done by 6 or 6:30. Jasmine then closed the public portion of the hearing. David: In the Comprehensive Plan or the Community Plan my recollection is that in the last couple of years there has been a lot of neighborhood discussion about use of the yellow brick school currently. I wondered 2 things--did any of that study discuss other uses in the yellow brick school other than daycare? And as far as daycare specific use and hours of daycare was there any discussion about daycare use beyond 6:00? Even perhaps beyond 8 or 10:00? Nightcare use. Davis: The Comprehensive plan itself says "Continue as an education center". One thing that we have asked for we would like to have considered is special events such as bike swap, summer carnival. In our discussion with the neighbors is they don't care about that. 14 PZM6.8.93 Tim: I have a problem with the commercialization of a residential area. I think that the ELC and the educational aspects of it are fine. But to extend the hours and extend the uses I basically think that it impacts the neighborhood too severely and I have some problems with the educational related uses that are in the recommended conditions. Roger: I want to keep as closely oriented to education as possible. I want to keep the impacts as close as practical and that might not be close enough for some of the local residents to the conditions that exist as a school. I don't know if there should be a fixed cut-off time that says nothing happens after that because that seems rather impractical when you look at how the school was operated before. There were occasional later events with groups of people. I think as a school function an occasional event isn't bad. The problem is when you have a continual event late at night that includes door slamming and a lot of noise. I don't have a problem extending it to some adult classes but I don't want those going late at night. #2--that, with a fixed restriction of 8:30 I don't think is adequate. Sara: I would vote on the amendment to the conditional use that it only be educated related services. Again now we are going to have to define that. I think if you are going to expand hours you have already re-zoned the red brick school house. I think we then go into re-zoning which I don't want to see happen. This is a conditional use to the R-6 zone. And I agree with the neighbors it is very important--I think the neighbors are important to that neighborhood and to the community enhancement. I feel you are the landlord now. The neighbors do not have to go to the Waldorf School. They do not have to go to the different entities to work out these problems. The ELC needs to set up a channel of communication with those neighbors and respond to those concerns or that conditional use is going to disappear in a hurry. I am willing to let it be an expanded conditional use for educational purposes but no more hours. ,"- Richard: The main concern here seems to be hours of operation and traffic in various forms. The Wildwood school buses have come under fire. I understand they have been at various locations but I would hate to see the needs of this neighborhood be met while the bus loading is moved to a more dangerous location. I think it needs to be addressed but I am certainly not going to kick them out and let them flounder around on the busy streets of Aspen. "';'~-, 15 PZM6.8.93 On the hours of use it seems to be classroom activities in the evening that would generate the most activity and the greatest variety of people who aren't sensitive to the neighbors. So a lot of adult programs in the evening I don't think are appropriate. I would rather leave the hours open but say "No classroom activity after 7 or 8:00 P.M.". I don't think it is appropriate that the ELC start leasing space for evening adult programs. But if there is an actual need for extended evening child care, that is a different question. It is when those activities take place that presented the problems. David: The conditional uses allowed in the R-6 zone--3 uses that are allowed as conditional use are clearly specified in the code. The uses of this particular building short of rezoning and short of further comprehensive study should be limited to those 3 uses. Personally I could support 24 hours a day use for the daycare center as daycare use. As a school use, school is public education but public and private. The Land Use Code and the conditional use sections do not define whether school use is limited to age. It could be adult education. It could be child education. It could be infantile education. Therefore I think educational uses could be allowed and if they are currently allowed as conditional uses. And I think especially related to parenting and childbirth classes in the early evening is extremely reasonable and compatible with the historic use of the site. The only item in #2 that I have any problem with is educational research. Is that a school use? In my opinion that is an office use. As much as I would like to see it help support this facility from a Land Use Code interpretation standpoint unless it is a classroom situation or a school situation research is not school. So I could support everything in #2 except the education research portion and office portion. Tim: I can see research use as long as it is not for profit. I am kind of stuck on the commercialization of the use of the building. If someone is going to set up an office and use it for profit and have people coming and going then that is a different use than educational research that is not for profit. If they are going to be things that are associated with Lamaze classes where people are stopping by to buy things or they order things through Lamaze and they are buying things or some kind of enterprise that is commercial then I have problem with those uses. I don't even know if we can make a conditional use that it is non- profit. 16 PZM6.8.93 Jed Ca~wall, City Attorney: I would just point out that the zoning code ~s a conditional use for private schools and they are generally in business to make money. So I think while you make a good point I am not sure the distinction between profit or non- profit is all that important in the code. The code doesn't make that distinction. Jasmine: It seems to me the members of the Commission are not in favor of extended hours till 10: 00. That that is much too impactive on the neighborhood except for the occasional board meeting. I don't think that anybody is opposed to an occasional late night use that is school related such as the board meeting or parent teacher meeting that takes place occasionally. What I hear from the neighborhood is that the impacts of the evening use are those that can't really be regulated by the tenant or even the subtenants. For example you are having a class. It is one thing to say "Well there are only 6 people in the class". But there is nothing to prevent the 6 people from leaving the class and going outside, slamming doors and screaming. And there is no way that the tenant or sub-tenant can police that. And this is the kind of impact on the neighborhood that can't be regulated no matter how well-intentioned the tenant or sub-tenants are. And that does create a tremendous impact. We are all aware of the situation of the ELC as far as it's financial concerns. We have heard this before when Ruth Stone applied. Because there were so many children and she needed a place for her daycare center which was a for-profit enterprise because there was a tremendous need in the community for care for pre-school age children. The extended hours are very important for people who are working several jobs. But I voted against her school at that time because I felt it an inappropriate land use. As much as we would like to be aware of the importance of the ELC's pre-schOOl we, as a Commission, have a responsibility to the Land Use Code. It is obvious that there is support needed for the ELC but it cannot come at the expense of Land Use Code. And even though this is a much broader based school I really feel that it is important for the community for us to stay within the definitions of child oriented educational uses. I would agree with members of the Commission who are not really comfortable with the new definitions that Leslie came up with. MOTION Richard: I move to approve the conditional use for the expanded educational uses of the Early Learning Center at 215 North Garmisch ~~th conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated June ~, 1993. (attached in record.) Condition #1 as is. conditicln 17 PZM6.8.93 #2 as amended by Leslie Lamont. Condition #3-- Roger: Are you basically working off the addendum sheet? And should we identify that? Richard: #3 to be changed to read "There shall be no classroom activity in the building after 7:30 P.M. seven days a week. And Conditions #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 as in the memo. Roger seconded the motion. There was discussion here regarding 23. Jasmine: My question is different. If you had 29 employees would you have to mitigate? Davis: No. Richard: No. According to her numbers. I suggest #8 be that the ELC commits the building no more FTEs on site than under the previous elementary school use as determined by staff. Roger agreed to this for his second. Sara: I have a problem with #3. I think that it could be called a meeting. It is not a classroom but a meeting every night. And I would like to see #3 stay as is. And if there is an occasional meeting and they feel it is necessary to notify the neighbors it is up to the ELC to do that if it is going to impact the neighbors after 8:30. Roger: How about "Regular meeting or classroom activity scheduled" . Sara: The building shall not be used after 8:30 at night. I would like it to stay the same. Richard: Does that mean the door is shut or that-- Sara: No. If it needs to be used then--if it is in the conditional use then we are safe then. I like that. If it needs to be used another time I think they need to notify the neighbors. Richard: I agree with your intent. ..-.'-' Leslie: Would you like--"The building shall not be used beyond 8:30 P.M. except for the occasional and infrequent use by ___mumble___ That means that they can't--there would be nothing beyond 8:30 at night. That people who already are in the building up to 8:30 if they have an occasional use to ---mumble---. -- 18 PZM6.8.93 Everybody who is in there before 8:30 will be there till 8:30 and there will be nobody new coming in for late night class. Jasmine: So how is #3 going to read under Leslie's suggestion? Leslie: The building shall not be used beyond 8:30 P.M. seven days a week except for the occasional and infrequent use by existing tena~~~II1I1IJ:I~___ " Davis: We would like it to be 10:00. Leslie: Infrequent and occasional use is kind of broad. But I think there is a certain amount of implied policing of the use with the neighborhood that has to go on. Davis: And we are perfectly willing to agree to monitoring the compatibility issues. And educating as necessary be it the janitor, the parents or the neighbors. Richard: I will amend my motion to include #3 as stated by Leslie. Roger: I will amend my second. David: I think I will be unable to support the motion primarily because of the inclusion in #2 of educationally-related uses and not strictly limiting the uses to education and'daycare use. After further discussion-- Tim: Originally you said 7:30 P.M. And now Leslie is suggesting 8:30. After discussion on this-- Richard: I understood it as being 8:30. Roger: That is as I understood it. Sara: Would you read #3 again. Leslie: The building shall not be used beyond 8: 30 P.M. seven days a week except for the occasional and infrequent use of the building by the ___1Il1JIlIbL-.:... () ,~ i ~\(~"-zl lc t 10,,'11, Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, no, Richard, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. 19 PZM6.8.93 TEXT AMENDMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY PARKING REOUIREMENTS Leslie: You don't have this in your packet because staff decided to put this off as we are not considering it. Jasmine: We are adjourned. Time was 7:45 P.M. ity Deputy Clerk ,~""'" "'- 20