Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960820PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Steve Buettow and Dave Johnston present. Timothy Mooney was absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich submitted a memo regarding DEPP Goals and Tasks from Tim Malloy, Director of Long-range Planning. Garton stated the goals and enhancement for the downtown area are ambitious in requesting P & Z response by 8/30/96, especially since the next regular P & Z Meeting isn't until 9/3/96. Dave Michaelson will talk with Tim Malloy about waiting until the 9/3/96 meeting or the Commission will respond individually to Blaich. Garton questioned the ISiS Theater HPC approval for the tear down of an entire brick wall on the ISiS that originally wasn't going to be taken down. Dave Hoefer, City Assistant Attorney was present at that HPC meeting. HPC allowed them to taken down the wall and recreate it because the mortar was in need of replacement. The owner is to make it as historical as possible. Tygre inquired about the use of the new Poss building next door to Stewart Title. The building was slated for office space and it is now clearly a home. Garton said that it was Poss Architectural Offices, but was sold and is a private home. Michaelson stated that there is a change in use issue here, because, if approved for Commercial it did not mitigate for Ordinance 1. If Residential then mitigation for Ordinance 1 was needed. He will check into this. Buettow said that an ADU was done and Garton recalled that it may not have been represented as only office space. She wanted to know when the Trailer and Construction Walk-way could be removed so that the sidewalk would be returned back to the town. She said there should be room to set-up a Construction Office in building. Michaelson stated that this needed to be requested. Michaelson, staff, requested that the Aspen Valley Master Plan Amendment be first on the agenda because the planner, Ellen Sassano, had a schedule conflict with the County P & Z meeting at the same time. Joe Wells, Public, stated that this scheduling issue has come up recently. Wells said the meeting is noticed for a certain time and place and should be kept to that time. Garton answered that the date is only noticed and not the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 time. Hoefer explained that the order may be changed and if there is an objection from the people, then Commission will make a determination which has the most merit. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. Minutes MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of August 6, 1996 and August 7, 1996. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC MEETING: Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment Referral Hunt disclosed that he and project manager, John Young, have a relationship with a 6320 Corporation, Non-Profit. He doesn't have a problem but would like to hear objections and be happy to step down. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, felt that Hunt's disclosure was appropriate and saw no need to disqualify himself. Ellen Sassano, Staff, introduced John Young and Ted Guy representatives for Aspen Valley Hospital District. The application is going through County Land Use Review Process. Sassano seeks referral comments from the City P & Z perspective to take to the BOCC 8/28/96 meeting. Sassano gave the history that funding was denied in the 1992 review. About a year ago the voters approved the mil levy increase. The Master Plan for the Hospital was revised based upon public input as a part of that vote. Essentially a 5,504 square foot additional space is proposed to the existing building of 64,616 square feet. Primarily the additions accommodate an expanded and more efficient circulation for the Entry area, Emergency area and expansion to Physical Therapy area. The revamping will accommodate and relieve congestion to people coming into the hospital for regular services and separate those coming in for emergency room services. There will be about 14,500 sq.fl of remodeling to the interior of the existing hospital building. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Sassano stated that the most significant change to the Hospital Campus is the addition of the 37,603 square foot building. 27,320 square foot Medical Office space accommodating Doctors with Hospital Privileges and 10,283 square foot, 15 One Bedroom, Affordable Units make up this 2 story with a third story below ground building. Sassano said parking will be reconfigured in from of Assisted Living Facility, adjacent to the new building and create some underground parking. The intersection will be reconfigured to better accommodate the new plan. Sassano explained the county requested a Master Plan Amendment from the 1989 GMQS exemption and special review for the Medical Office Space in the Public zone and 1041 to look at slopes. Garton opened the recommendations/comments from the Commission. Chaikovska expressed positive support for this project with no particular concerns at this time. Tygre agreed with the concerns noted in Sassano memo particularly to traffic and employee mitigation. Hunt questioned the underground parking with respect to landscaped surfaces and restoration to original contours, with basic support for this project also. Blaich stated concern for the traffic, parking and signage. Buettow asked if the Hospital would become more cost efficient with all the expansions. Johnston inquired about the 15 one bedroom units. Garton commented concern for transportation issues yet recognizes the need for the expansion. Sassano answered Hunts concern that the intent is to bring the grade back at contour. Young explained that the final grade (the top of the structure) will be landscaped much the same way as the Snowmass Conference Center with light weight soils mixtures to protect the patient views from that side of the Hospital. He said the actual final elevation is four feet lower for the top of the landscape. The stand of oak that shields Meadowood from the Hospital is protected and preserved. Young further explained by digging into the 19 year old vegetated man-made hillside from the original construction of the hospital, the structured parking would be 4 foot lower connecting in a pedestrian manner between the hospital and the medical office building. He stated parking will not be assigned to anyone but will be open parking for everyone. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Hunt asked if the driveway access is going down grade into the parking structure. Young stated that it is slightly up grade. He also noted that the costs of improvements and the new building will be revenue neutral - the rents doctors pay to the hospital will cover the costs of all these improvements or it won't be built. He said the hospital will not directly subsidize in any way. Young remarked this trend is a change in medicine and in the hospital procedure as an out patient facility rather than an in patient facility. Hal Clark, AVH Board, responded to the funding question. The primary reason for the project is to improve patient care in the hospital. The #2 reason is to retain & attract doctors of high quality. He said providing Physician space next to the hospital will aid in keeping the quality of medicine high. He felt that with the free land from the County they can make it work. Young explained the Non-Profit 6320 corporation will fund the project by the issuance of revenue bonds. As soon as the debt is paid, the hospital will own the building. Young replied to Johnston Employee Unit question. Employees of the Hospital get first priority and the Housing Authority asked the County at large to rent the units if not taken by Hospital Staff. Michaelson asked if the 15 units correspond to the square footage. Young said there are two points of view on the number of units to be determined. The right number will be determined with the Housing Board meeting 8/21/96. Hunt had a technical question about the ER point of entrance. Young responded that the general public will arrive at the same point but with a new entrance, accommodating curb side parking through 5 minute and handicapped spaces. He said ambulances will have a dedicated right-of- way into the ER entrance and "the walking wounded" will come in the main entrance and be steered left to ER/TRAUMA area of the hospital. People veer to the right for the general area (patient visitation and offices). The new entrance provides the ability to separate the family from the ER patient efficiently. Much thought, planning and detail went into this new re- 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 configuration. Offices will be consolidated, the LAB expanded and relocation of the blood bank were thought through by 100 members of the hospital staff. Garton said her comments relate to the applicants from a City Planning point of view. Her concern is transportation. She stressed the need to improve the entrances. Garton regrets any community services being moved from the city limits, yet understand the need for the efficiency in the relocation. Garton also noted that the need for the Medical Services Building with it's private practices to go through GMQS. She asked that the BOCC take a hard look at the amount of traffic generated and the actual cost from the Maroon/Castle Creek area be added so that they pay their fair share. She further stated adding another bus stop and good bus service along with major planning on the traffic is essential in that narrow valley. She commented that the waste water amounts are alarming. Hunt would like to see RFTA include Senior Services and the new Medical Service Building in an internal loop in the present stop. He said that it is understandable that there is no auto connection because of the patient proximity with the noise of the buses, but would like to see the design encompass Senior Services. Sassano said that alternatives with RFTA are being looked at with internal circulation. Young stated that they are sensitive to the patient sanctity and the seniors and the bus will drop you off at any location when the driver is asked to do so. Young stated that there are 32 conditions and many are transit related. PUBLIC HEARING: 305 South Galena Conditional Use Review Garton opened the public meeting and asked for proof of notification. David Hoefer stated that the legal notice was correct and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Suzanne Wolff, Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting conditional use approval to permit short-term rental of six existing residential dwelling units on the second floor of the Aspen Block Building, 305 South Galena. Wolff said residential units in the Commercial Core zone district, located above street level in historic landmarks may be rented for periods of less than six months subject to Conditional Use Review. She said the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses and there are other Commercial buildings in the immediate area with short and long term residential uses on the second floor. The Brand Building, 81611, Aspen Drug are a few of those examples. Wolff stated that they are not proposing any additional services, not changing the units at all and essentially no additional impacts will be created by short term rental of these units. She said that they are currently rented long term with a six month minimum lease now and that provision would be removed. She said since the use will not generate additional employees, therefore affordable housing mitigation is not required. Staff recommends approval. Garton asked Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, if it is accurate to represent that they presently get daily maid service for their long term rentals. Sunny Vann replied that he was informed by Richard Dusseau and the applicant stated that it is in fact the case. Garton inquired about an increase in service. Richard Dusseau explained that there is a provision in the leases that tenants sign with a provision for daily maid service. Vann stated that the distinction between this building and Harley Building is that this building is not truly a hotel. He said it allows the applicant to rents something for two weeks or two months during the high season at Christmas. There are no services, no valet parking, no idea of renting it every single night on a short term basis, but provide a mechanism to fill in those times when rooms are available to generate income, otherwise they would be limited to the six month lease. Garton asked if there would be advertising and what do they do about vehicles. 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Dusseau answered that advertising would be mostly word of mouth and that tenants have parking passes for the "A" section of town. Vann stated that the parking privileges as any resident of the down town core. Hunt asked if the downtown core is in the "A" section. Vann replied that if you have a residence in the downtown core you actually have a choice of which residential zone you want to park in. You have to specify where. He said the parking would be much the same as the Lanedo and others with joint additional permits. Buettow stated that with this change the applicant would be allowed do a one night rental. He said that this a major change with an extended period of time for one night rentals from the six month lease option. He noted the Aspen Area Community Plan promotes and generates long term accommodations for employees. Vann noted that this is a conditional use which means it is allowed subject to mitigation of compliance with the various criteria. Vann said whether or not it should allow short or long term rental is not a criteria for review, but the impacts associated with the operation of the use, consistency with the character of the neighborhood, whether it has an adverse impact on traffic or trash and so on that matters. He further stated the decision has already been made about what can be placed in that zone district and the fact that it is allowed in a historic landmark is one other way to preserve and maintain that historic landmark. Hunt noted that the system for controlling parking (long term and short term) is completely different. A lodging type passes are needed for parking if there is no parking provided on site. He said short term pass is only good for a certain # of nights. He asked how would the mechanics of this work. Vann replied that currently it is not a lodging pass but if it was it would be returned at check-out and copy of guidelines would be handed out at check- in. Vann said that a level of management is required to make sure people come in and out and daily maintenance service and will be provided out of the applicant's residence. 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Hunt said that is fine for the long term resident and it is now short term or Lodge type of activity with respect to the parking situation. The passes will be out in circulation with no control over them. He would like someone from the parking and transportation to help with this issue. Vann asked if the issue was the availability of parking or how its going to be administrated. Garton stated the Commission would be dictating how to register their guests and, from a planning point of view they have designated parking for the tenants. Garton noted that parking permits should be the same as the Harley Baldwin Properties. Vann stated that he didn't know how Harley handled parking but the simple solution would be to have parking direct the procedure. He is willing to accept a condition with parking. Hunt stated that these 5 units need an on site manager. Vann said that there was an on site manager would provide keys, access. Garton replied that the applicant's letter indicated that there would be an on site manager. She asked Hunt if he wanted a condition added from the transportation department to view the intent? She added that the administration could be a problem, but it is the applicant's problem. Garton asked if someone was prepared to make a motion. MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the conditional use review to allow short-term rental of six existing residential units at 305 South Galena Street with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated August 20, 1996 with the additional condition that Hunt just made to work out a parking plan with Transportation Dept. Seconded by Chaikovska. In favor: Garton, Hunt, Robert, Chaikovska, Johnston. 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Opposed: Tygre, Buettow. There was no Public Comment. PUBLIC HEARING: Vet Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review Garton opened the public hearing and asked for proof of notification. Hoefer stated that proof of notification is legally correct and Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. Suzanne Wolff, Planner, explained that there are two parts to this application. She stated the text Amendments related to the definition of a Veterinary clinic and adding a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Service/Commercial/Industrial and Rural and Remote zone districts. She said the conditional use review for the specific request to allow a veterinary clinic to Main Street. She asked the if the commission wanted the text amendment to go first and proceed with the conditional use. Hoefer explained the text amendment must be approved by council first before that conditional use amendment can be approved. He said bifurcating the issues was fine. Garton reiterated that the text amendment must be first approved by council. Krabacher asked the City Attorney to introduce his letter into the record stating his objection. Hoefer stated that for the record that he and John Worcester reviewed the letter from Mr. Krabacher. Krabacher maintains that text amendment needs to go to City Council before the conditional use can be considered. Hoefer explained to the applicant that litigation could occur if P & Z proceeds tonight. He said they might take the safer approach and present to Council first but it would take a longer period of time. He stated this is up to the applicant on how he wishes to proceed. Joe Wells, representative for applicant, introduced the applicant Dr. Jon Rappaport. Wells stated that any approval by P & Z was contingent upon 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 approval by Council of the text amendment. The applicant said that he wanted to go ahead with the text amendment and Conditional Use Review. Garton said that they will proceed with the text amendment. Suzanne Wolff, Planner, explained that the specific text Amendment requested to add the definition of a Veterinary clinic to the Land Use Code and to add veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office zone district and staff is proposing to add the use to a Service/Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts. The definition is as follows: Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are made to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result from noise or odors. Wolff stated that in relation to the specific standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), one of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the permanent community by providing incentives for locals serving commercial uses. A veterinary clinic is a use which would benefit local residents, and which is currently not permitted and not available within the City of Aspen. Wolff said that the Office zone district allows ;~professional business offices", which includes offices for ;~physicians, dentists, etc. professionals who primarily provide services rather than products." The majority of those services are for the resident population and not for the tourist population. She said many other medical offices are located within the Office zone district, along with residential and other office uses. Staff recognizes that a veterinary clinic has different impacts than other medical offices which can be considered through the conditional use review. Wolff noted that the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) district allows ;~limited commercial use and industrial uses which do not require high or generate high customer traffic volumes." A veterinary clinic would not conflict with any of the existing or allowed uses. She also stated that the Rural Residential zone district allows low density residential use and compatible accessory uses such as farm buildings and use, nursery and 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 greenhouse. A veterinary clinic would be compatible with the other uses in this zone district and have less impact than in more dense zone districts. Wolff said that they have not proposed a vet clinic in any other commercial districts in the City because most of the C1 zone districts are tourist orientated. Hunt stated that there was a vet clinic in the old Obermeyer building which is SCI. How was it allowed. Wolff said that they looked through the code and couldn't find veterinary clinic addressed anywhere. Garton asked Wolff if she wanted to respond to any of the letters. Wolff said that the letters were specific to the conditional use. Hunt noted that he had a problem with the vet clinic being in a residential neighborhood because of the noise. He hasn't seen a plan of how they would deal with this issue and the odor issue. Garton stated that the criteria is different for the text amendment and the conditional use. She asked Hunt if criteria 3 was not met on the text amendment. Hunt said that in the close proximity of a residential district he did not want to see it but he was supportive of a vet clinic in SCI and Rural Residential because the residences would be farther apart. Chaikovska noted that there is no boarding of healthy animals, which would seem to reduce the noise factor. She asked Dr. Rappaport if there are only sick or animals that have had surgery or just come in for a visit, would seem to create less noise than boarding healthy animals. Rappaport stated that 90% of veterinary hospitals board healthy animals, which accounts for 95% of the noise. He is only hospitalizing sick animals that need intravenous medication and these animals are not making any noise. Also the number of animals that would be in the hospital in this area would not be significant. He said that in other areas where there are 20,000 to 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 30,000 people in a three mile radius, it is possible to have 3 -4 animals in the hospital at one time. Rappaport stated that he hired the top veterinary architect to design the space. He said that he has other clinics, even ones in the same building with other offices, and he has never had a complaint about noise or odor. Joe Wells wanted to focus on the generic mitigation measures that the Commission considers crucial before approving a conditional use for a vet clinic in the residential or office zone district. Garton asked to poll the Commission to decide if a vet clinic was appropriate as a conditional use in this zone district, 702 West Main Street. Garton opened the public hearing. Joe Krabacher commented on the text amendment issue with respect to procedure. He said the Commission makes the recommendation to Council and Council adopts the code amendment (the text amendment). He said that this is not an appropriate use for this zone district, it is in direct conflict with the AACP. He stated that there is a significant difference between a vet clinic and a medical clinic. He asked the Commission to take a look at the code criteria and examine each district for this text amendment. Garton reiterated that they are looking for the definition for the text amendment and not conditional use at this point. Krabacher asked to look for the appropriate zone district for this conditional use. In the office zone district the conditional use relates to historic structures. He further stated these conditional uses have been allowed as an incentive for the preservation of historic structures. He said that by allowing this clinic in the office zone district, it would be displacing residents which is against the AACP. Graham Means, Public, lives in an R-6 zone, and has real concerns about this use. His concern is odor and that there will be a vent in which noxious gases will be pumped from this building. He said that the noise can't be controlled when the animal comes to and leaves the clinic. He stated that staff has not responded to the issues. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Don Stapleton, Public, stated that he spent two years trying to put in an office building on that lot and the different committees had so many rules that they were not allowed to do it. He said that they have put the property up for sale because of all of the legal hassles. Garton asked the question to the Commission for a text amendment "Is a vet clinic appropriate as a conditional use in this zone district, 702 West Main Street." Chaikovska said that since there is no overnight boarding and there are provisions for noise and odor, she has no problem with it. Tygre stated that separating the text amendment was a good plan. She said that it is hard to take an animal that may not like to travel to the AABC for treatment. She said that the definition of a veterinary clinic is appropriate and is a local serving business. She said that she supports the text amendment. Hunt responded that he supports the text amendment for SCI and Rural Residential. He said that he has a problem with the Office zone and the noise that is associated with vet clinics. He stated that he cannot support the veterinary clinic in the Office zone. Suzanne Wolff noted that there are noise levels within the code. The Office zone district is included in the Residential use which is what would be allowed. Blaich replied that Tygre took care of all of his concerns and he does support the text amendment. Blaich asked Dr. Rappaport if he had any other clinic in an area like this one. He further said that the conditions must be met. Rappaport stated that he has one that is adjacent to a residential house. He said that they did special landscaping, and worked with the neighbor. Buettow stated that he cannot support the text amendment because of # 1, #2, #3, #4, #7 & #9. He would support it for the SCI areas but not here. Johnston stated that he will support the text amendment based upon prior comments. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Garton said that she will not support the text amendment in the office zone. Garton asked for a motion from the original proposal from staff. MOTION: Tygre moved to approve the proposed text amendment to add the definition of veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office, Service/Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts. Seconded by Chaikovska. Motion passes 4 to 3. Garton stated that the text amendment will be forwarded to Council. Hunt asked if the conditional use could be limited to a certain amount of time. Michaelson said that the ability is there in the conditional use permit. There are limitations to the code. Wolff stated that there is a public nuisance ordinance for a barking dog. Garton said that now they need to consider this application as a conditional use. Joe Wells asked if this discussion could be opened at later date and get some feed back from the Commission for what they would need to do. Hoefer stated that the only concern that he had was that if it is opened for comments by the Commission, then the Public Hearing has to be opened. Garton said that it would be preferable to table to a date certain. The applicant agreed. Krabacher stated that this notice was sent out for public hearing and it should be held. Hunt said that he doesn't have sufficient information to proceed tonight. MOTION: Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing on the conditional use of veterinary clinic at 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 702 West Main Street at the developer's request and to provide additional information on September 3, 1996. Seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC MEETING: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) - Conceptual Review Continued Public Meeting Garton opened the Public Hearing. Michaelson, Planner, explained that conceptual conditions were approved for Lot 3 ;~The Top of Mill" on August 8. He asked that staff memo concerning Dean Street location be reviewed by the Commission. He noted that there have been a series of public meetings and that staff has proposed conditions. He noted in the memo the bulk and the mass of Dean Street location is still of concern, the height of the building is now 42 feet and the width is 250 feet. Michaelson said that a joint resolution would be brought by September 3, 1996. He stated that the pedestrian path through this property to the Ritz and Nell has been redesigned. He said the ice rink would be addressed at final review. There was one letter from Joe Edwards at the time the staff memo was written and some of those issues were dealt with concerning rezoning. Michaelson further stated the purposed conditions of approval are to include all representations of the applicant and the type and bulk of the Dean Street Building. Options to be considered include reducing density and reducing square footage of the units. He said at the time of Final PUD a detailed landscape plan, proposed lighting plan and detailed development schedule specifying the construction date are needed. Michaelson also noted that the applicant must comply with the Engineering Memo dated June 26, 1996. Garton wanted to clarify that these conditions apply to Dean Street. Michaelson said that it is correct, completely independent of the Top of Mill. Hunt stated that it part of the problem he has, number 47 applies to both sites. He said that Dean Street and the Top of Mill are inter-related and cannot be separated. 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Michaelson said that there will be a unified resolution with Council. It has been clearly represented by staff and the applicant that if the GEO Tech study comes back between conceptual approval that 17 units cannot be placed on Top of Mill, then the applicant will have to come back to the Commission. John Sarpa, Applicant, stated the process has been complex. He thought that the informal vote which was taken months ago worked through the height issue. He commented that the Engineering Minutes Meeting had brought up issues that were agreed on and others were not. He said there was no problem with a condition to work with Engineering on all the issues raised, but it doesn't require them to comply. There were several instances where Engineering had one opinion and they had another. Sunny Vann, Representative for the Applicant, stated that some issues were also deferred pending submission of additional information for the next round of review. He said the applicant has not agreed to everything in the Engineering Minutes. Michaelson said that if Engineering issues are not settled, then this submission would not go any further than P & Z. He noted that the drainage plan is significant for Top of Mill. Vann replied that some of the issues are technical in nature and Council will make the final decision on those issues. P & Z can make recommendation to Council but staff will deal with some of the arcane issues. Vann said he is looking for some kind of language that doesn't imply that they have acquiesced all of those issues in that memo without the ability to further discuss them. Michaelson commented that the way that the memo is written, responses from the applicant were to dedicate easements where needed so there will be sufficient distribution for water. He asked if the word agreements was deleted and it read representations instead. Vann said there are significant issues on the size of the project for Lot 5. Garton asked the Commission if they could resolve this issue. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Vann stated Mooney, Hunt, Buettow, Garton, Chaikovska, and Johnston all voted at the May meeting. Buettow questioned the 3 foot parapet in terms of height. This wall was included to mask the mechanical equipment which is viable but as an element it could be manipulated and used specifically for that purpose. Sarpa explained the parapets would only be where the flat roofs occur and the ends of the building are ridges. Garton asked if there was need for more discussion or to view the model again. She said there were some concerns from the last meeting. Hoefer stated Mr. Edwards letters were included in the packet and he will respond to that letter. Joe Edwards, Attorney for Michael Teschner, stated the 10 year old geological survey recommended detail studies of this area (Top of Mill) before any development is done. He said this P & Z Commission passed Resolution 85-6 (Top of Mill) which recommends the PUD be delayed until the ten conditions are met. Four or five of those conditions concern the studies that geological recommendations be done. He further responded that P & Z recommendation was taken by Council and included within the language of the first amended PUD document dated Oct. 3, 1988. Edwards questioned the processing of an application when there is a possibility that nothing could be built there. He said it is a waste of time to keep going through this process with no geological survey in place. He asked that the applicant adhere to the agreements of the land use code regulations. He stated that this P & Z denied rezoning the Ski Club Building to public, instead it was rezoned R-15. He asked that the Commission review what is allowable with the zoning before the conceptual approval is recommended. Garton reminded everyone that Commission had a two hour work session on how to proceed and this is conceptual review. She asked for the City defense of why Commission is proceeding in this manner. Hoefer stated that many of the previous agreements benefit the City of Aspen and have a "good faith" agreement with Savannah. The commission has an obligation to look at the substantive issues to determine if this project is the 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 best interest of the people of the City of Aspen as well as in compliance with ordinances. He said that under the City Ordinance the zoning is to be looked at in step 3 & 4 for the zone change. Hoefer noted this entire proceeding is a public hearing with public input being encouraged. The zone change will also be at public hearing. He said that the application submitted by Savannah must meet the legal requirements. Bob Hughes, Attorney for Savannah, had a written response to Joe Edwards letter dealing with the amendment to the agreement. He stated in response to Edwards most recent letter, they have always agreed to the geological study. He noted that 33 units had been conceptually approved by P & Z for the Top of Mill. He said that 8 years ago they paid the City $250,000.00 to get these studies done and for them not to be able to go forward because the studies haven't been done is one of the worse "Catch 22's". Vann stated that there was a recommendation that zoning be changed to L2 now LTR, not be approved by the P & Z. The code in effect at the time, the FAR could be varied, which are no longer in effect. Hughes and Sarpa stated that the project has been down-sized. Garton said that this Commission is proceeding in "Good Faith" bargaining that there was an agreement struck and Savannah is coming in on the last part of a very long (from the Meadows to the Ritz) last step in their agreement. She noted that there are a lot of issues, especially on the Top of Mill. She replied that the Commission did not agree to proceed with the conceptual until the GEO Tech is received. Michaelson described that the condition of approval for the record is from the 1985 Resolution that described additional GEOTech studies and cited compliance with Jeffery Hines of March 1985 and July 1996. The planning and zoning commission recognizes significant GEOTechnical issues remain unresolved at this time (Top of MILL), and in fact may change the site plan density or unit size as following adequate analysis of mitigation. He also noted that the language is clear for the intent of the condition and they could have to completely start over. Sarpa stated there is literally nothing they can do without a significant agreement with the Engineering Staff on the overall Drainage Study. He 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 asked why they can't continue with all the other issues that they are in agreement with the conditions. Vann stated that the City was comfortable with the conceptual on this project subject to a fairly stringent set of conditions. He said that they are trying to get back to the same place that they were before. Garton asked if the building envelopes were resolved at the last meeting. Michaelson replied that were in no position to provide the 8040 Greenline Approval because the building envelopes may shift. He said that the point of tonight was not to make a motion but rather review Dean Street and to bring back a joint resolution on Sept. 3rd. It will be a joint resolution as submitted. Garton stated that the Top Of Mill Resolution will be presented on Sept. 3. Garton opened the public hearing. Gene Reardon, Public, Fifth Avenue Condominium owner experienced movement and damage in their building as well as the Field home, the Durant and the Mountain Queen. He said it began with the Ski Company snow making. He stated that the City, Ski Company and Savannah has to sit down together and solve the problem. Ziska Childs, Public, reiterated that the water flow into Fifth Avenue has become more substantial since Savannah has hard packed and put left over construction materials into the field. She said the geological and drainage studies are needed for those that live in that area. Hoefer noted that the studies are a substantive issue and not procedural. Ann Murchison, Public, Fifth Avenue owner and Board Member asked if staff would provide proposed conditions for approval on lot 3. Michaelson replied that there was a memo from staff on August 3, 1996 addressing those issues. Doug Hasset, Public, Aspen Lodging Company, asked for a GIS picture 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 facing town, looking down to the parking lot and townhomes for the Sept. 3 meeting. Bill Poss, Architect, said that they will generate some sort of picture for the next meeting. Joe Edwards, Public, asked if the commission really wanted to approve a multi-family huge project on an geologically unstable area. Evelyn Childs, Public, owns 2 Fifth Avenue Units, she purchased the units when they were built in 1968. She asked how the trash trucks, tourists, etc. are going to get up the hill. Garton asked the Commission if they had any more questions from the applicant before they meet Sept. 3rd. Garton expressed her concern for the Top of Mill. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 20 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20~1996 Commission Comments ............................................................................. 1 Minutes ....................................................................................................... 2 Aspen Valley Hospital master Plan Amendment Referral ........................ 3 305 South Galena Conditional Use Review ............................................... b Vet Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review .................................. 9 Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) - Conceptual Review Continued Public Meeting .......................................................................... 15 21