Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160816Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Spencer McNight and Keith Goode. Jason Elliott and Ryan Walterscheid were not present for the meeting. Brian McNellis and Jesse Morris arrived late to the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True and Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre feels over the past couple of months there has been sketchy attendance by P&Z commissioners especially for continued hearings. She feels this is a disservice to the other commissioners, the applicants as well as the public. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan noted staff is looking into scheduling a special meeting on September 27 to discuss commercial design guidelines. She will follow up with an email to the commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg wanted to speak in regards to the Lift One Lodge application. She noted the top landing area is missing from the platter lift plan because it goes into the property being discussed at tonight’s hearing. She asked for P&Z to make a recommendation to bring the lift further down to connect to the platter lift. She wants to ensure Michael Brown can complete his approved application to install the platter lift. MINUTES June 21, 2016 – Mr. Goode requested his name be changed to Mr. McKnight on page four since he was not in attendance. Mr. Mesirow motioned to approve the minutes with the stated correction. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. Aug 2, 2016 – Mr. Mesirow motioned to approved the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development – Continued Hearing Mr. Goode re-opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 2 Ms. Phelan explained since the last hearing, the applicant has proposed changes to the site. Due to the level of information provided to staff prior to the publication of staff’s memo and agenda packet, staff is recommending continuing the hearing to September 20th to allow staff time to review the changes and provided a detailed memo. She noted she received updated drawings for the project on August 15th and shared them with P&Z as exhibits Q and R. She stated it included a summary memo and additional graphics. She also provided an email today including additional letters received since the agenda packet had been provided. She summarized the letters received and noted they will be included as exhibit S. She then provided a brief overview. Since July 19th, the applicant’s modified application including the following.  Site plan with a redesigned building  Redesigned cul-de-sac that has been enlarged  Fewer terraces  Lift has been moved a bit to a lower location She noted at the last meeting, P&Z’s key concerns included the following:  Mass, scale and dimensions of the building  Closed off views  Location of the lift She felt tonight was an opportunity for P&Z to determine if the changes address their concerns. Any future changes or questions they feel need to be answered. Staff plans to provide a detail analysis at the next meeting. Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Morris and Mr. McNellis then joined the meeting at 4:40 pm. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there was any plan to create dimensional requirements for the Ski Base (SKI) zoned district for the future. Ms. Phelan replied there are no plans to address SKI based zone in the current work plan. If the property is rezoned to SKI, it will have site specific dimensions defined. If something were to be changed in the future, it would be some type of Planned Development (PD) amendment potentially requiring board review. Mr. True added this is an overlay on the zone which sets the dimensions of the project. Ms. Phelan noted the Lodge zone district has dimensions associated with it and if the property was rezoned to Lodge, the applicant would need to meet those requirements of the underlying zone district or ask for a variation beyond the underlying zone district. With the SKI zone district, it has to be through a PD to establish the dimensions. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jim DeFrancia, representing Norway Island LLC, stated they are responding to the issues raised by P&Z at the last meeting including:  Lift placement and semi-public access  Views up the historic ski corridor from Dean St  Traffic circle  Mass, scale and height Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 3 Mr. Richard Shaw, Design Workshop, stated he wanted to provide rationale for each of the proposed changes and how they address P&Z’s previously stated concerns. He provided a new site plan and noted the eastern wing of the project which had been described as hugging the lift and blocking the arrival from the cul-de-sac has been removed. He also noted significant changes to the view planes upon arrival to the portal and he will provide illustrations to further describe the changes. The overall square footage of the building has been reduced by about 7% and the uses inside the building have been reorganized with the intention of reducing sf and finding efficiencies. The position and accessibility of the lift has also been modified. He provided several highlighted views of the site plan to demonstrate the outline of the previous building design and the latest proposed building outline as well as the new locations of the patio, hardscapes, stairs and retaining walls. The new plan removes the eastern wing, includes a porte-cochere on the cul-de-sac providing a covered entrance. The cul-de-ac is now much larger in response to questions pertaining to the functionality, congestion and purpose of the previous design. He then provided previous and current designs of the site plan to demonstrate the positions of the lift and the changes to the accessibility. The position of the lift in the latest proposal is 20 ft closer to the existing lift; placing it further down the slope and making it more accessible from the portal as well as more visible and direct from the turnaround on S Aspen St. He then described the elevation of the loading areas of the current and proposed lift locations. He also identified the distance of about 66 ft between the two features. He then described changes to the design of the building which improved the accessibility to the lift as well as the views of the historic Lift One Park corridor, the lift and mountain views. He also provided illustrations of the March proposal and current proposal of the view looking up the mountain from below the lift. An illustrative viewpoint from a higher vantage showed the lift canopy as well as the mass of the building which has been moved back to maintain historic corridor. He then provided illustrations of the turnaround and public arrival and the stairs up to the lift. Next, he discussed the changes made to the ski return site showing the March submission and the revised version. The revised plan retains the area around the mazing, preserves existing trees near the Caribou Condominiums, and reduces the need for retaining walls on the eastern side of the corridor. The pedestrian access to skiing is now direct. The turnaround site has been enlarged by 5 ft to address staff’s concerns to accommodate larger vehicles. A loading/unloading lane and shuttle space have been added. The porte-cochere is a two story space above the cul-de-sac which is open both visually and functionally. Mr. Shaw then provided a map showing a shuttle route from Rubey Park to the site. He noted Rubey is a logical connection point to accommodate people arriving from outside Aspen. The route places the traffic on Dean St so it will not conflict with other transportation services on Durant Ave. He estimated the trip to take 2.5 minutes or eight trips per hour and could allow for stops along the route. He stated the shuttle would be a 4 wheel-drive van accommodating 12 people, which is more than what has be projected to ride the transit. He stated similar vehicles have been proven for similar use and are currently operated in Park City. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 4 Mr. Shaw then provided elevations of the March and current proposal to discuss the scale, height and mass of the building. Both proposals include two, three and four story buildings. He pointed to areas of the March proposal that have been removed. He stated the redesigned building is much more efficient with the repositioning uses. The restaurant has been moved down the slope and now adjoins the rest of the public space. The upper sloped roof from previous proposal which accounted for a full story has been eliminated. Additional reductions in the building include the roof tops, occupied space and individual unit size. Mr. Shaw then discussed the neighborhood compatibility as defined by S Aspen St, Monarch St, and The St Regis which accommodate lodging and residential since the beginning of Aspen. It is a combination of three and four story buildings with different roofline configurations. He provided a site plan of the neighborhood and described the neighboring projects and buildings. He noted the project will maintain 49 ft above grade in some sections of the building. The proposed building continues to step up the slope. He stated hotels do not operate well if they are spread out and the central circulation of the hotel needs to serve the majority of the hotel rooms. The highest portions of the proposed building serve the central circulation space. Mr. Shaw then provided a pictures demonstrating the proposed building in the Wheeler view plane as viewed from the Wheeler Opera House. The highest portion from the previous proposal has been reduced by one story. He noted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access is now outside the hotel and is more direct with the revised plan. The ski run is now contiguous all the way to Dean St. Mr. DeFrancia asked Mr. David Corbin, Vice President of Planning and Development for the Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo), for a few comments to address the public portal accessibility. Mr. Corbin stated he has worked on plans for S Aspen St since 2008 when the initial convenience and welfare of the public (COWOP) met. He feels the opportunity for a comprehensive master plan has been lost since the COWOP stalled in Council. He stated each area has been challenged by site constraints and infrastructure. SkiCo strongly supports the uses of the project including lodging at the base of the hill and also wants to ensure the functionality of skiing and summer access. They worked with the project team on the alignment and dimensions of the road, the skier return, and lift configuration to ensure skier circulation, lift equipment, public arrival all work. He agrees there is greater visibility from the cul- de-sac with the latest proposed design. He also feels the 16.5 ft up to the lift from the cul-de-sac is not appreciably different from the conditions of the Silver Queen Gondola. They feel the ADA needs have been adequately met and the direct approach to the mazing area is suitable. The skier services will be immediately available upon arrival. Mr. Corbin noted they worked with the design team on the plan modifications regarding mazing, circulation around the lift, returning skiers, arriving skiers, initial scans and returning visitors and feels all functions are sufficiently accommodated and manageable with this design. He stated the shuttle service as described should work for the property as well as the property below, surrounding properties and the public. Mr. DeFrancia then asked Mr. Tom Todd, a Partner of Holland & Hart, to discuss the SKI zone district. Mr. Todd stated he had looked into the history of the area of the South Annexation in 1967 which included a number of lodges and commercial uses on edge of the city limits. This annexation to created a new tax base for city at the time. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 5 He stated the conservation zoning in existence now has evolved over the years and noted a couple of examples of properties previously zoned Conservation.  The Little Nell was zoned as a Special Planned Area (SPA) to accommodate the development  The Aspen Alps evolved from Conservation zoning He stated another context to consider was the evolution between ski area operations and the town itself. It is not defined by lots and blocks; it includes the whole southern boundary. He stated the proposed site includes 17-18 of the permitted uses for a SKI zone district per the code so it is suits the site well. It is a six-acre site including ski operations, ski lift, and skier entry. He noted there a four sites within the city limits zoned with the SKI zone district. He added these sites are all different in size and topography. 1. Silver Queen 2. Aspen Highlands 3. Tiehack 4. Lift one A Mr. Todd stated in regards to the lotting and subdivision, he stated it is based on the challenges of having two separate owners providing two separate uses. The lots are stitched together with easements and will be reflected in the final land use approvals. Mr. DeFrancia then provided a summary of the applicant’s presentation. He wanted to note they are now comfortable with a five-year vesting plan instead of the ten-year plan previously requested. He added there is a great deal planning that occurs after the land use approvals are in place. Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury acknowledged the comments provided earlier by Ms. Kronberg and wondered if the applicant would consider accommodating the neighbors down the slope. She asked if parking was available for the general public to use on the site. Mr. Shaw responded there are 57 spaces identified per code based on the uses of the project. The spaces may be utilized by hotel guests and the public using the hotel space. It does not include public parking for those not using the Gorsuch Haus program uses. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. Corbin for SkiCo’s opinion of the platter lift. He responded the platter is not viable. The COWOP’s master plan back in 2008 – 2009 required coordination with the City’s parcels with the site’s lot. In this case, the platter was adopted as the best compromise available among weak choices with those building masses and property divisions. Even then, questions were raised if the snow and surface could be maintained, particularly within the 44-45 ft between the two parcels on Mr. Brown’s property. He stated it would be very difficult, if not impossible to maintain snow above and push it down Dean St. If they attempted to make snow in the lower area, the would bury Mr. Brown’s buildings because you cannot control it and the noise would be unacceptable. He also stated there is not enough width to operate and return. The lift would have to be shut down to enable return skiing. He also noted the area is off their property and outside their permit boundary. Legally, there would be a variety of questions to address operating below the Gorsuch Haus. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Engineering has had an opportunity to view the latest proposal. Ms. Phelan replied she provided the site plan to Engineering. Engineering responded with some initial comments but Ms. Phelan wanted to wait till next meeting to allow for a more substantive review. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 6 Mr. Mesirow asked if another ground based transport solution from Dean St had been considered that is now off the table. Mr. DeFrancia replied they looked into a horizontal elevator from Dean St and incorporated into a lift complex. This idea was vetoed by Lift One Lodge so it was abandoned. Mr. Mesirow informed the applicant he appreciated the changes to the lift which makes it more of a public amenity. He noticed in the process of changing the building envelope, a lot of the outdoor patio space had been eliminated and wondered if the elimination of so much outdoor space reflected a change in the intent of the project in regards to preserving space for ski racing in the future. Mr. DeFrancia replied no and Mr. Shaw stated the allocation of outdoor space has nothing to do with the history and heritage of ski history with the Gorsuch family or this portion of the mountain. They have ensured the space is useful and made available to the public. By remassing portions of the hotel, there were able to eliminate a great deal of grading and space required for circulation as required by the restaurant when it was located at the top of the slope. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to add the Lift One Lodge had very sound reasons for not wanting the horizontal elevator traversing their property. He did not want to make it sound as though they were not neighborly. Mr. Morris asked if the area below area J on the site plan would be groomed. Mr. DeFrancia replied it would not be groomed and remain natural terrain as it is currently. Mr. Morris then asked where the restaurant is located on the building plan. Mr. Shaw pointed to its location in the porte-cochere and in the space near the lift. Mr. McNellis asked if the drop off area was planned as a dedicated right-of-way (ROW) to the city. Ms. Phelan stated in the original submission, most of it is located in the City and a portion of it would be dedicated. There may be a different approach with this design. Mr. McNellis wondered if there would be issues with the private space over hanging pubic ROW. Ms. Phelan stated like the St Regis, Engineering would expect it to stay in the ROW with appropriate easements. Mr. McNellis asked if this plan had been run by FIS in regards to future race events. Mr. Corbin replied the site slope and grade modifications would not impact the race finish area. Mr. McNellis asked if this was a response from FIS and Mr. Corbin replied they have not yet reviewed it with FIS, but did not foresee it being an issue. Mr. Goode asked for the tallest height of the redesigned building. Mr. Shaw stated a segment of the building reaches 49 ft above grade. Mr. Goode asked how much further the building goes up the hill. Mr. Shaw stated it doesn’t go up the hill further. The original design included a covered cantilevered roof which has been removed. The patios, cantilevered roof, and retaining walls have been removed from the upper end. Mr. Mesirow noted everyone’s agreement that activating this section of town is good and wondered if the significant free market portions of the building would lessen the activation. Mr. DeFrancia replied there are only six free market units of the 81 keys in the building and he does not feel this is a significant portion of the building. Some of the condominiums are restricted and will be available for rent. The six free market units are required for economic viability as evident in the study produced by the City. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened public comment portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 7 Mr. Don Gilbert visits Aspen in the winter and summer. He knows it is difficult to shoehorn a building into the available space but doesn’t understand why it is so difficult for townspeople to access the lift. He has seen skiers trying to climb the hill and sees people leave their cars at the bottom of the hill. He feels this is a very dangerous hill and does not feel jitneys will work. He has witnessed garbage trucks slide backwards down the hill. He feels there will be a lot of traffic in the area with trucks serving the hotel and guests. He doesn’t see why the lift can’t be lower. He also feels the building is too large. He counts 8 stories and you will see this from town. He also feels the hotel will block off part of the egress from Norway which is very active. The plan has narrowed the exit area. Mr. Jeff Harvey asked how the proposed shuttle service compares to the new lift capacity. He suspects the lift will transport many more people than the shuttle can transport. Mr. Clark Smyth lived in Aspen for 20 years. He feels the project is driven by the lift and FIS and asked if a new lift is really necessary. He feels a tourist arriving at Rubey Park will most likely walk across the street to the gondola instead of waiting for the jitney to take him to Lift 1A and taking numerous lifts to the top of the ski area. Mr. Michael Brown reviewed Staff’s memo and found many of the issues unaddressed. He noted a letter addressed to Mr. Mike Kaplan of SkiCo. The letter, Exhibit D of their development agreement states the lift corridor shall be closed to skiing traffic while the lift is in operation which he does not define as the corridor between the two buildings. They have reached out to a lift consultant. The lift corridor is 15 ft wide and the distance between the two buildings is 50 ft at its widest point. He stated there has always been and remains to be adequate space for a platter lift between the buildings on city property that was asked for and to which they are contributing $600,000 towards as part of their approval. The only thing missing is a landing site which was envisioned as part of the new lift area. He suspects they are choosing not to do it because they don’t want to give up a building site for a terminus of the lift. He also asked P&Z to ask why the applicant is requesting a SKI zone district and urged them to look at Staff’s table previously provided which highlights the variances in affordable housing, floor area, and height they are seeking. He feels the applicant needs to be transparent about it as they are regarding moving the lift 65 ft up the slope. Ms. Toni Kronberg asked how they can connect the platter lift to the landing site since it falls on the Gorsuch property. She stated the original easement granted by Howard Avery to SkiCo, then to the City, then Michael Brown and then back again specifically states the ski corridor is to remain open. The platter lift is not a viable solution for the intent of the original easement. It is a complicated issue with all the property owners. She previously worked in an ambulance and noted it was downright scary to drive down S. Aspen St and they ran into several cars. She feels S Aspen St should have a snow melt system. She also feels perhaps other technologies should be looked at to transport people down and noted the gondola project website which describes projects all over the world and noted the skittles lift in Snowmass. She would like to see Michael Brown’s project and the Gorsuch project come together with a solution. She also feels the City is a partner in this as well. Ms. Nora Berko asked fundamentally why we are building more lodging and not holding it to a Lodge zoning. Mr. Bart Johnson is at the meeting on behalf of the Lift One Lodge. He stated Ms. Kronberg’s comment regarding the easement is incorrect. All the old easements were vacated and a new easement was granted. The Lift One Lodge approval states they will contribute $600,000 to the City to go toward a platter lift on public property. Their approval states there will be a platter lift and associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Way to a point south of Lot one or the Gorsuch project such that a skier can access lift 1A or a relocated lift 1A that is approved. They want to Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 8 do this, but need a landing area. At the last meeting he took notes on P&Zs comments and wanted to remind them of their concerns with lift moving uphill the hill at all and it still is moving 65 ft up the hill. Several raised concerns about any vacations of ROWs. With the larger cul-de-sac and cantilevered building, he feels more vacations will be necessary. Several voiced concerns regarding the Norway ski run. If Ms. Phelan’s plotting of the building is correct, the entire building actually shifts up the hill a bit to become a bigger barrier to the ski run. He feels P&Z needs to consider the Lodge zoned district as a baseline for what is being requested. He stated several commissioners asked for a detailed response, which he does not feel has been provided. Ms. Shelly Emerick wanted to ask SkiCo why this fast lift is necessary for this little section. Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then asked the applicant to respond to the public comment. Mr. DeFrancia agrees S Aspen St is steep. It is his understanding the Lift One Lodge approval calls for a boiler manifold system in their building to accommodate a snow melt system and they would be supportive of this. He also noted the building may have the appearance of eight stories and this is equally true of the Shadow Mountain building which has the appearance of seven stories while only being 29 ft. His response to the need for a new lift was that when a lift is 45 years old, it needs to be replaced. A lift is essential for the racing and other components. He added the issue with the platter lift is a bit of a red herring and Mr. Corbin has spoken to why it won’t work. In response to Ms. Berko’s statement, he feels Mr. Todd has spoken thoroughly regarding the SKI zone and it is not just a hotel which is what the SKI zone was designed for. In response to Mr. Johnson’s statement regarding the $600,000 condition of their approval, Mr. DeFrancia stated they have an obligation to contribute the money for uphill transportation or for the facilitation of uphill transportation. This will be triggered by their certificate of occupancy for a term of five years. Mr. Shaw stated the comment regarding the building is now further uphill on Norway is not correct. He noted the building footprint had been previously located further into the Norway terrain. That portion of the building has been smoothed out making it more accessible from the Norway side. He added the ski under portion of the ski lift establishes the point in which the Norway return takes place. Mr. Shaw stated the shuttle is valuable in regards to the accessibility of the portal. Today, about five percent of the total skiers enter on this side of the mountain. It will vary a little bit depending on the conditions or the availability of the gondola for a particular day. If you look at the number of skiers and the number of people generated by existing and approved lodging, to total number of skiers on a peak day will be 350 skiers. If spread across the transit described, a 12-person shuttle will be about half full on their trips allowing room to pick up people on the route. Mr. Corbin responded to the comments regarding the lift going nowhere. He stated there are reasons for replacing the lift including the natural mechanical life coming to an end. He stated the lift 1A is the oldest or next to oldest in the fleet. They have a capital replacement schedule in place providing a replacement sequence. FIS has told them they need to clean up this portal and lift to something which fits what they expect for a FIS event experience. Sooner or later SkiCo would like to have this portal improved. He stated other reasons include the need for a second portal in case the gondola is not working and customers expect a high speed lift. He estimated the ride time would be reduced from 8 minutes to about 3.5 to 4 minutes. SkiCo would like to revitalize the old Ruthies Restaurant, but there is not specific plan at this time. FIS is happy with the alignment and termination of the planned lift. In regards to capacity, the new lift will be able to move 1,200 people an hour. He stated there were approximately 346,000 skiers at Aspen Mountain this past season and 315,000 skiers at Aspen Mountain Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 9 the previous season. A study for the COWOP process calculated about 2,000 skiers on the mountain at one time and about 4,000 skiers on a peak day. Based on the more recent numbers, an average day would be about 2,600 skiers based on a 130-day season. In the past season, initial scans averaged at 152 skiers and on the peak day of January 31, there were 530 initial scans. Riders thru the portal averaged 799 trips with a peak of 2,332 trips. He feels the proposed lift will be able to handle the volumes. During the COWOP, this portal was at about six percent. With the contemplated with bed base alone, a peak of 400 initial skiers using the portal would take it to about 20%. He doesn’t feel it will be flooded by skiers using the transportation to use the portal. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then asked Staff on how to proceed with the hearing. Ms. Phelan responded P&Z should continue the public comment to the next hearing on September 20th. She asked P&Z if they had initial comments on what was presented by the applicant. Mr. Mesirow would like to see the traditional detailed proposal, but he would like to see the uses described for the SKI zone district included in the packet. He would also like to see an updated side by side comparison regarding zoning as provided in the initial meeting. Mr. McNellis stated he would comment once he has a detailed review from staff. Ms. Tygre is appalled about the lift situation and would like to see a better solution brought forward that brings it down to Dean St. She feels the proposed solution is unacceptable. Mr. Mesirow agrees and would like to see other options for solutions. He feels it puts the community into a poor position if the two biggest projects in the area start their endeavor in conflict and would like to see them work together. Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see more information on the options from the City since it is a player. She is struggling with the approval conditions required from the Lift One Lodge. She doesn’t feel she has the tools to make a thorough decision to address the interests and would like input from the City regarding available options. Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see a thorough response from staff on how the subdivision is affected by the amended proposal and how it aligns with the initial memo. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels they have come a long way to preserve view plane and provide a more public access to the lift. Mr. McKnight would prefer to see staff’s memo before commenting. His biggest issue is the lift situation and we are attempting to revitalize this area, then we should be coming up with the best possible plan and does not feel the proposed solution is good for the town. He feels there has been a disconnect regarding the platter lift in the past meetings. He would like to have more information on potential solutions and how P&Z fits in to the decision. He is not sure it is valid to use old numbers to justify the lift and mobility solution up the hill. Mr. Morris appreciates the applicant’s direction with the increased efficiencies. He agrees the other commissioners and wants an updated comparison matrix. He thinks an integrated discussion on the lift would be great in terms of the vitality for the town and it may be good for city to lead the charge. He does not feel it is P&Z’s role. Mr. Mesirow feels the interaction with the community is critical for him since they are asking for the SKI zone district and would like to see a better picture of the interaction. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning August 16 2016 10 Mr. Morris feels this location is unique because instead of being at the base, it is cutting up the hill. He noted when looking at elevations from the side, he thought if you take off the upper two stories the building would be the perfect size. Mr. Goode would like to see the snow melt solutions explored more. He feels there may be issues with the traffic going down the road in the winter. He would like to see the neighbors getting along better and understands it is challenging. He also wants to see the details of the plan at the next hearing. He would love to see a lift that works for everyone and could it come down to the Lift One Lodge. Mr. McKnight feels everyone keeps punting because it is no one’s responsibility for the solution and to pay for it. He would like to see the city take the lead. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing to September 20th. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.