Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870616 .PI PLANNING AND ZONING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JUNE 16. 1987 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Welton Anderson at 5:00 pm with all members present. COMMISSI{)NER' S COMMENTS David White brought up the problem of parking illegally in front of the Hotel Jerome and people not being able to turn right. Alan Richman said if it is properly signed then it is an enforcement problem. The responsibility is no longer with this commission. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Roger Hunt made a motion to re-elect Welton Anderson Chairman of the Board and Jasmine Tygre Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Ramona Markalunas with all members in favor. INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENT Jane Hamilton representing Mary Webster: Mary has made a generous offer to the local church community to donate property for church purposes. The property is located in zone district 0 which does not permit uses for church. What we would like to do is ask that you would review a submission requesting the addition of church to the 0 zone conditional uses. We feel a church would be a good use to add because it preserves the integrity of what the purpose of the 0 zone is. David White made a motion to sponsor an amendment to add church use to the 0 zone conditional uses. Ramona Markalunas seconded the motion with all in favor. Alan: We have been asked about Nature's Storehouse and what could be done about the condition of the property. I talked to the Building Inspector and the chief engineer to try and determine what we could do about the barricades. The barricades have been moved off of the public right-of-way and onto the sidewalk so that parking is again permitted on that site. The reason the barricades are there is the streets are torn up underneath the barricades and that is the only way to provide a walking surface. There needs to be some way of fencing people from walking onto that property for liability reasons. It is not clear if construction is going to proceed this summer. I was talking to the architect and they are considering some design changes possibly some applications to you. I don't have a final report on that. The only question I have for you is--we don't need a full barricade there right now. We need a walkway and some kind of fencing. It would be possible to cut that barricade down significantly since there is no construction going on on the site. It removes the need for the overhanging type of barricade. Roger Hunt: When are they going to lose their building permit? Allen: They have got 30 months from the date of GMP submission s they have got a long time before they have any building permit concerns and extensions on that are not difficult obtain. It would be difficult for us to withdraw the building permit at this point. Roger: Isn't there an ordinance that requires them to progress? Alan: The building code does require them to progress. Roge r : I sn' t the re a local ordinance as well that we can enforce. Alan: There was work going on there as recently as April. There is no code being violated and there is nobody telling me to look for violations. I am not actively looking to withdraw somebody's building permit that has validly pursued that permit. I don't think that is an appropriate action at this point in time or serves any public purpose. Roger: The publ ic purpose is moving. That is the important. a valuable thing to have. Allen: The building permit is being validly held. The question is do you wish to take any action about the barricade. to get them on notice to get I assume the building permit is Ramona: Are you going to provide a better walkway? Alan: No, the walkway that is there now is the walkway that will remain. There is no opportunity whatsoever right now to get the owner to put additional money into walkways. They are meeting the provisions in the code. The question is is it necessary to have such a large barricade there all summer. Roger: I believe we have an ordinance that allows us a little leverage to get them moving on the project. Alan: I think we also have an owner who is receIvIng no value from his property right now. So it is probably incumbent upon 2. him to get his financing and I understand the situation that he is in and I know he does not want to be sitting with a building unbuil t. He used to have a tenant on the property. Now he doesn't. Roger: If they are least we could get open piece of land. not going to move forward on it, at the very it covered and flattened and have it be an That is what the ordinance allowed us to do. Alan: We have got the basement. Covering and flattening it wouldn't be getting them closer towards getting a building. It would be moving them two steps backwards as would withdrawing the building permit. MINUTES MARCJt-I-"1. 1!HJ1 AND APRIL 21. 1987 Jasmine Tygre made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction of the name in the March 17th minutes. Jim Colombo seconded the motion with all in favor. RESOlitl'fiON t5 "Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission requesting the Aspen City Council to formally endorse the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element." Roger: We took a systemic, all-inclusive approach on the overall Transportation Plan. If Council does have objections to some portion or wants to change some portion, we would like them to take the systemic approach in looking at their recommendations and see how it relates to other things. I hope that if they have significant changes that they would make it through resolution. David White: Since there is a new Council, perhaps we should have a work session on this particular item. Roger made a motion to adopt Resolution 87-5. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion with all in favor. MOONTAIN-VIEW -SUBDIVISION REZONING.ANI)-S'l'RBE'l VACATIONS Steve Burstein: At P&Z' s last meeting on the Mountain View application to consider the conceptual subdivision rezoning and street vacation on March 17, 1987, the Commission discussed the original application to some extent and mainly discussed the approach suggested by the applicant to amend the application by 3 suggested conditions of approval. The basic idea was to amend the project basically to downscale it including reducing the number of units from 58 to 36, reducing the floor area from 72,545 sq ft to 42,500 sq ft, to drop the rezoning request, to reduce the parking spaces, to move the Aspen Ski Company parking down the hill. There were a whole series of changes that they were wanting to get some feedback from the Planning Commission. No action was taken by this Commission because neither the applicant or his representative was present and it was considered inappropriate. P&Z members did clearly indicate at that meeting that they were not interested in embarking on the approach suggested for a variety of reasons. The Planning Office position is that it cannot support either the original application with which we have a number of problems. My memorandum of both June 9th and of March lIth elaborate what the reasons are. Nor can we recommend in favor of the amended approach for this proj ect. As we did state at the last meeting if the Planning Commission is interested in that approach, we will work with the applicant to make it a complete application and to make suggestions for improving the application but it basically requires that you endorse that approach. The reasons we don't recommend it is that it has an effect on the GMP quota. The 1987 quota is basically up in the air and it is less than 6 months away in the residential competition. We feel that that is unfair to the other applicants as they are trying to prepare and given a limited quota, the possibility for future allocation or for carryover of past allocation, none of those things have been resolved and this delay puts those applicants in limbo. We feel that we are talking about a very substantially changed application. The question is whether it should be rescored as an amendment or as a new application. We think it would be most proper at this time to score it as a new application since it is changed so much in its basic parameters. We are also concerned that the evolution of the project from the standpoint of both GMP and subdivision review could become unwieldy for both staff and P&Z to really get a handle on what project they are reviewing. We question whether that is really a good way to proceed from a planning point of view. The applicant has mentioned that the Aspen Mountain Lodge did embark on a similar type of approach and we have talked to some extent about that with the applicant and agree that there was basically a GMP approval. Then at the point of conceptual subdivision a lot of changes were made. However we feel that the magnitude of change is quite different between what this applicant is wanting to do with the Mountain View Project compared to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The scope of the two If projects is really quite different. The applicant is changing the size, the building location, the footprints, the circulation and the parking arrangements. They are changing so much of it that it is, to us, a considerably different application. So we don't feel an unfair precedent is being set here if you choose not to go with the amended approach that they are suggesting. We think that there is a fundamental discretionary decision with regard to the request to rezone land that is now R-15 LPUD to L2, an upzone. The Planning Office still has a lot of problems with that based on the transition concept and the appropriateness of that particular site to accommodate it, and also about the community need for additional tourist accommodations for the upper end which is the stated market area. We feel because of those concerns, it may not be appropriate to embark on trying to amend this project. It should be noted that the Hotel Jerome addition is just completed, adding a lot of units within that very target area. Little Nell is anticipated for next summer and the Aspen Mountain Lodge has approval that is still valid. Be that as it is, I think the applicants would like to further request that you look at that approach and it is your decision. Doug Allen: If you are ready to go ahead and let us make our complete presentation, we will. I would like to try and persuade you to allow us to do that. We were not here on March 17th because we were dealing with this portion of the piece of real estate that is involved in the Roberts v Commerce transaction. The Friday before March 17th we were noticed for a hearing in Glenwood Springs that lasted for 3 days and part of the evenings and we physically could not be here because we were ordered to be in court at that time. The Planning Office has consistently stated that they are taking a neutral position about this project. The recommendation from the i r neutral position is that you dismiss it and not consider it. We put up on the chart over there on the wall the meetings that were involved in the Little Nell Hotel and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. There were extensive meetings to deal with problems. One of the problems in our project was parking. David White was most vociferous about that. There was too much parking. There are things that we are willing to do with this project within the realm of financial feasibility and within the realm of what the lender will allow us to do to change this project to meet some of your planning concerns. I don't think that we can legitimately plan this project without the assistance of you people on the Planning and Zoning Commission. To do that, we need time to present the whole picture to you. The Council was critical of P&Z when the 1001 Appeal came before Council. I happened to be there that night. They complained S" ......_.__._~.....M. "." ..._.._._....__....~_... ' .~._....,_.~..<'_."'.., .... about not having enough time to present their case when they presented it at the GMP stage and Council was critical of that. We haven't complained about that. We feel it was a very short period of time allowed us but it served its purpose for GMP. It doesn't serve the purpose for continual planning on the entire rest of the project. Steve has mentioned that the allocations are a problem, that the allocations are in jeopardy. Last year when we made this application on December I, 1986, we did not know up to that point how many units were available. That computation was made almost simultaneously with the submittal. None of the applicants knew exactly how many units were available because it was not published by the Planning Office. Yet, now we are being told that June or JUly is too late when last year it was December before it was decided. This is a procedural matter that we are dealing with in magnitude of change. Steve said we had a lot more changes than the Aspen Mountain Lodge. We did a check list on it in terms of pure numbers. There were 10 out of 10 changes on Aspen Mountain Lodge and we are willing to go along with 6 out of 10 changes. So when you talk in terms of pure magnitude, we are a lot less. There has been a lot of conversation about the needs being met. We don't know what will happen to the Jerome Hotel. It is just finished and on line. We are not a lodge. If we were a lodge, we could not have kitchens. One of the important components of this is kitchens. These are condominiums, apartments. They are not lodge rooms and they are not lodge units. That is why it is a residential-multi family application. The overhang of all these lodge units that has not been finished and has not gone on line--there is nothing that we can do about that. We are not competing in this category. We are not in that market. Again there has been conversation about what market there is, what market has been met and what market we are targeting. We are targeting the family that wants a unit with a kitchen to come here on ski holiday and not the people who want a unit without a kitchen and to dine out in restaurants. The anticipation of these other units coming on line has been speculative for several years, especially with relationship to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Our project is about 1/7th or 1/8th the size of that proj ect. We woul d I ike the opportunity to present possible alternatives to what we originally presented in our GMP. (Referring to wall charts) The line of charts on the left, the big chart and the 4 little ones below it on the next section are some other alternatives. The third section essentially is Plan C which we really don't support but it could be done absent some rezoning, absent some relocation of the street. The middle one is the one that we favor and we would like an opportunity either " now or at another session to present these to you and have a dialogue going so that we can achieve some good planning and give what we think is a very viable project in a proper area off the ground. Tom Kerwin: You have a little memo on your table which was suggested to the P&Z as a means of going about this procedurally. We think it is appropriate to give this kind of an opportunity to this applicant because you did give at least 3 or 4 times that many hearings to the Little Nell Hotel and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. So did the Council. My suggestion is that we go through this evening an overview of the project and discuss in a general way some of the alternatives. The purpose of that is for us to get your input. We thought we would address the question of the parking as a preliminary matter. We propose on June 30th. If that date is an inconvenience to the P&Z, a work session to be designated by you. We then go into the site's specific analysis including the street vacation and the rezoning. And then finally at one future meeting, and we suggested the 14th of July or a different date if you want, to do a subdivision and conceptual review and a completion of that and then take a vote. It seems to us the most important thing is--we have met with staff only in the last few days about this new approach and they bel ieve the P&Z doesn't want to give us this opportunity. They have told us, however, they are perfectly willing to work with us on these alternatives and we suggest that activity take place. It is very important that we get that access to the staff 's planning assistance. This thing started off with a suggestion from the staff that we come to you with conditions of approval. It was their idea. We followed up with a letter. Apparently somehow that got off track. The conditions of approval technique is something we have used frequently. We want to use that. We want it to be a project that you are enthusiastic about too. It is a major project for the City. It is a very important project for the City. There aren't very many more spaces like this available in the City and it is right at the foot of the ski hill which is where you want your tourist. Doug: Roger made a comment before the meeting started--"Why didn't we have this earlier?" Well, we almost fell into what was perceived as a trap in that when we presented these ideas previously, then they were submitted with the thought that the applicant wants to make these changes. We would like to see it just as it is on the left. We would prefer not to make any changes and we didn't put those in your package because we want to get a dialogue going here and we would like you to have these in front of you to see what might be a better alternative than what we have proposed if you don't like what we have proposed. It has met the threshold on the scoring, now we need to find a 7 --"-~ way for it community. little time to work for the appl icant, P&Z, That is all we are trying to do. to do it. Council and the We just need a My client is well into the 6 figures on what he has spent to get to this point. We need just a few hours to go over it with you to get it to where it works. Welton: Is this kind of scheduling going to work? Steve: It is up to you. You know your full work load better than I do. I know your caseload section of it but I don't know all your other long-range planning functions. Welton: Do you think something similar to this--adjusting the dates for them and for us is reasonable? Steve: We are willing to comply. I would suspect that you are not going to be able to simply to do with one meeting per week, that it would get into two meetings on some weeks to accommodate such a schedule. Jasmine: I think that if the Commission wants to go with alternative I I would say come back with a new application which is the way we were heading in the last meeting. Alternative 2, which the applicant would prefer, I think if we are going to do that, we definitely postpone it because I don't think there is any point in going over these plans until we have a chance to look at them. I think that before we go through any kind of alternative changes that we should have an opportunity to study some of the material in these prints. I think once we make the decision as to whether to go with I or 2 then we can figure how to proceed after that. Welton: The applicant is asking at this stage to give us the simplest overview of what changes are taking place. I don't know that we need to sit back and study these on our own. I think this would be helpful. Jasmine: My opinion is that I would like to have the opportunity to look at this. Jim Colombo: In order to decide whether or not they should come back in December or whether we should work out a session with the applicant, I would like to hear a 10 or 15 minute presentation by the applicant going over all the changes. David White: I think that would be good and then I think that we, as a Commission, should sit down and discuss it in depth. That would give us the time to decide whether we are going to have a new application. ~ Ramona: I think that is a good idea. Sam Hyatt, architect for the applicant: There are 3 major items wih have always been an issue on this project. Roadway design. There was some criticism as to the street up the hill that didn't align with the existing street patterns and therefore mayor may not be as productive or as necessary to the neighborhood system. The concern with the Dean Drive extensions satisfied some issues of neighborhood traffic but al so brought issues relative to the Timberridge and to their parking needs there. The major change then for the modification on the site plan really involves the removal of Garmisch Circle extension and replacing that with a greenbelt and proposing that we make the Dean Drive extension and allocate a right-of-way through our property, do a loop down into existing Garmisch providing access to the Barbee Estate and prov iding access into our proj ect and through to the City. What that does do is that leaves existing City Dean Street which is now utilized with Timberridge for their parking. That leaves that parcel alone as its existing condition. Parking: The second item which has to do with parking involves reducing the below grade garage of 124 cars being replaced with a below grade garage of 60 cars. Aspen Ski Company parking: In the GMP submittal that parking had been located at the top of the hill to go from this parcel to the adjoining parcel. We have to place that parking within our project. It has to be accessible separate from our garage off of Dean Drive. Where the Aspen Ski Company parking is located presently, we are proposing coming into Dean Drive, staying low on Aspen Street, automatically going to a signed designated Aspen Ski Company parking exclusively for them. That is a direct in, direct out, separate from the rest of the parking in our project. We feel that some of the issues about visibility still holds true. The 30 car requirement which comes with our property is maintained. We do have the benefit now of covering it. When you cover a parking lot it is certainly hidden from view. But rather than having a large open asphalt area it will now pay to have a covered parking garage for the Aspen Ski Company which can be landscaped. Mari Peyton: How do these people get to the lift? Sam: The lift would still involve pedestrian circulation. We will be providing stair access so the stair coming up from the garage, which is just one level in, will come up in the corner of what is the existing parking lot. So they will come out where the existing parking lot is. q "'_"'_~'....~...,,__.,__~, ..~_~,,~.'.,..,._ ',,_._0<.<. _....~' ._..".......__ _...'_~._.~.~...__.._ ._. __ __.~..____"' .____."."",--.__. Doug: When you go into the garage for the Ski Company parking, you go in at eye level. At another entrance there is a ramp to go down to the hotel. The reason we did it at eye level was so that it would easily be visible as Ski Company parking from Aspen Street as they come up the street. Then they would walk out the other end of the garage. Sam: All of the architectural detail ing is if the City deemed that they wanted a very visible parking lot, we could certainly leave the landscaping off of that. The other issue had to do with service. An existing GMP proposal is service off of Dean Drive and an enclosed dock. There was a dropoff an access into a garage. As part of this project was dropping a number of units, we also brought the number of needs of a larger dropoff the larger garage and that takes a larger service dock. We presently have a screened service dock area which appears on sheet 6 and that is designed to handle a 43 foot truck than can pull in on Dean Street and back in behind that screen area with an enclosed compactor. We are proposing to do 39 units in lieu of the 58 original units. The footprints of our building architecturally will remain the same. The reduction in the number of units is really accomplished in sections. This simplifies the excavation. Previously we had been using the original topography and the 28 foot height limit. We were using that rule in your code where you can extend gables 5 feet over turrets or spires. Artificial details can go above the 28 foot. In our new modification the top of the turrets all are at the 28 foot. We have dropped the building in height. We have also reduced the amount of excavation or terracing necessary for those lower units. By dropping that down we simplified the main floor circulation patterns, functional needs of service, of ski storage, office manager, and lobby area. Site plan C which we don't really favor is a plan which incorporates the missing Dean Street. What we will do in this particular plan is locate our project on that existing zoned area at the northern half of the si te ut il iz ing the ex i sting Dean Street with an entry dropoff of garage access into the lower level of our project. We have proposed that Juan Street remain as it exists without being modified and developed to a City standard. This would involve directing a radius at the western edge to handle any street circulation for fire truck etc. which mayor may not have impact on both our property and our neighbors property to go with that road. We would rebuild the Aspen Ski Company parking where it is. We would probably look at doing some kind of leveling with that to handle the potential for certain development on this site for its parking in that area. I think this particular diagram shows that the land space between 10 buildings may be more valuable at the northern end of the site rather than at the southern end of the site. In both instances we kept the final 4 lots of the southern piece of property open keeping the buildings both at one area. Ramona: Why does the street loop up? Sam: What we are hoping to do is to work at designing a roadway system that will facilitate the needs of the adjacent property owners and our particular project. Certainly there is a possibility for the road to come straight through. One of the things we need to work with is accessibility for fire protection to the Barbee Estate. What we would hope to do is be able to resolve a roadway system that would allow the proper and adequate emergency access not only to that particular property but also to this end of our property. That seemed to be a way to look at doing it. Basically moving the curve of Juan Street down the hill and sweeping it through. Ideally a winding along with existing Dean Street. For check in we would be doing a dropoff on the side of the street, just a pulloff curb. It is enough just to handle two cars or two vans. Then people would just go directly in to that lower level. There are 39 units with 62 parking spots. That would be I per plus 20 extra. There is no employee housing on the project. Cash in lieu so we don't need employee parking. Doug Allan: We have not worked out staff parking because we had a larger project before. Now we have reduced it. That I s going to be part of the dialogue. Jasmine: From the 39 units, your square footage would be reduced by how much? Are these one-bedroom units? What was the average square footage of the one-bedroom units? Sam: The floor plans are the same as The one-bedroom units are 1000 sq ft. They vary between 950 and 1000 sq ft. Welton then open the public hearing. Mary Barbee: I consider this a whole new plan. Something significant has happened here that was not mentioned then. This property that sits right here on lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of block 11, they have under option with Mrs. Austin. As of May that option expired. They have been attempting to re-establish that option. She assured me today she has no intention of re-establishing that option. That means that all those pieces of property, all the calculations that are included and greenspace issues and one thing and another are automatically removed. She further in the GMP application. They have not changed. Il author ized me to represent her as well to obj ect the closure of Juan Street because of all this property. Another issue regarding this whole street thing in conjunction with this through access is that this has never been public. This has always been proposed as private. There is a real contradiction there in that you have no control. All those issues that we objected to originally, we still stand by. Plus the fact that I feel this is a new ball game since lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of block II are no longer for sure. Doug Allan: I have not dealt with the lady she is talking about. I have been dealing with a Mr. Klingsmith in Gunnison on this and we still have an option as far as we are concerned. Mary: He is her attorney and she has notified him and ostensibly he has notified them that the option is no longer available. He was hired on May 6th. I called Paul Taddune today and Paul was out so I offered Paul the information so that he could check it out prior to this meeting and I also had an opportunity to tell Steve. Paul Taddune: I received a letter from Doug Allan stating somewhat baldly that the option is still in affect. Then about two weeks ago while Doug was on vacation, I requested verification. The records should indicate I requested verification from Mr. Kerwin as well and assuming that it exists, I have not received it yet, so I have requested some kind of documentary evidence that would indicate that that option is viable and in existence. I have not received it. Steve Burstein: I am not sure we are talking about the same options. This is the Austin property. Doug Allan: I have never dealt with anybody named Austin. It is in a trust for which I understand that Austin is a beneficiary. Mr. Pete Klingsmith is the sole person I have dealt with. He is a trustee. This is what Mary referred to. It is the Austin property, the remaining portion of it is Roberts/Commerce property. We have no problem with conditioning moving forward on furnishing satisfactory proof to the City attorney that we have standby. Paul: For the record until we get that documentation, my position is that we are not acknowledging any option while we are attempting to accommodate the applicant given the complexity of the project. But definitely that would be a condition. This whole proceeding without the applicant having demonstrated it to my satisfaction is conditioned upon them being able to do this at some point. Tom Kerwin: A letter came while Doug was out of town and I saw /2. the letter. It did not terminate the option. It is from Mr. Klingston and it dealt with the mechanics of continuing the option. It does relate to the four lots. I think that you are right, Paul, we will supply that to you but my best information is that that option is not terminated. Doug Allan: We will supply that before we go forward at another meeting if that is your choice. Tom: Before the public hearing I have been asked by Barry Lefkowitz to read you something which he could not be here for. It is a letter to the Commission. "I wrote you about this matter last year and my views are even stronger now. I have unit 180 at Timberridge Condominiums. The Timberridge and Lift One people will be much better off with the well planned Mountain View proposal, vacating Juan Street and rezoning the Ski Company parking lot which allows the building to be well away from us, 150 feet. They are concerned about not getting it within 5 ft of the building. And will ultimately enhance all surrounding property values. I believe a lot of thought has gone into this. Please give this your careful review. It is as important to our town as the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Little Nell Hotel." He enclosed a copy of the letter to you written in 1986 which I guess is in your file from last year in which he said he was surprised to learn that a Dave Ellis, a unit owner and president of the Condominium Association had given the Commission members the perhaps unintended but nevertheless misleading appearance of representing the view of Timberridge owners as a whole. Dave Ellis has never contacted us regarding the Mountain View Proposal and certainly has no authority to make any statements to you on their behalf. Welton asked for further public comment. Greg Oleman, a resident and citizen of Aspen since 1969: Over the last 6 months I have become familiar with this situation just for my own personal interest and not for any particular reason. I have to admit that I don't envy any of you having to go through all of this. I feel that in a way it is almost "Let's make a deal" type of proposition. Here you are with an applicant who has presented you with a proposal that was voted on that was reviewed by Planning and Zoning that was approved for 39 units or whatever and then several months later realizing that the total proposal can't be approved because you can only approve 39 units instead of the total amount that the applicant was looking for. Suddenly lets change the deal and change the proj ect. Now you can pick from one of three doors. Essentially Plan A, Plan B or Plan C. And if you will look at this, each one is completely different. The schematic drawing of Plan A shows two buildings, Plan B shows two buildings each the same size. Plan C is most interesting. 13 It is something that has never been shown before Planning and Zoning. It shows 3 buildings. Are we to assume that each building is the same size on this schematic drawing as on these two schematic drawings? I simply question whether the extra square footage is going to go. Are the bedrooms larger? Yet the bedrooms are not larger according to Mr. Cantrup's architects. In the drawings that have already been presented, its the same. They are proposing one-bedroom apartments with kitchens. This is a new development which has not been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning staff. I'm glad that you are provided with drawings of the new proposal because it is not part of publ ic record. I was down earl ie r today to get copies of what was publ ic record and that was not part of the record. Tom: Those are just blowups of what you have in your hand. Greg: Actually, that is not quite true. It might be true, but I don't think so. I was looking at these drawings and they are not the same. Providing that it is, looking at page 11 down in the lower Hyatt: Those drawings are exactly the same as these. These are drawings that were not finished when they had to be sent for a meeting with Steve Burstein. Paul: When you are saying this and that, you are referencing the documents Mr. Oleman has in his hand as being premature in preparation. Hyatt: I don't know what these drawings were submitted as. As the architect, I was preparing and have prepared these sketches, this package to bring to this meeting today. Paul: When you say this sketch you are holding onto something. Hyatt: This whole package was prepared to bring to this meeting to these P&Z members because it is difficult a lot of times in the meeting rooms for the people sitting at the table to see the stuff on the walls. So they can look at a package sitting on their desk. Paul: It seems to me you have acknowledged that what is on the walls was different than what has been distributed. Hyatt: The drawings are same. These are numbered. Those were hand numbered. Greg: As a point of clarification, they are not the same. I will just let you take a look at this and tell me whether that matches anything that is on the wall. 14- Paul: If this is going to be a problem in the future, the record should be clear as to what is being referred to. And if the documents on the wall are the same as the documents that are going to be admitted into the record, I would like there to be some explanation of what the difference is. Doug: All of these documents are here for discussion purposes only at this point to try and get some feedback from P&Z as to where they feel they should go with changes in the project if they want to make changes. As I said at the start, we would like to do what is over there on the left. We prefer not to make these changes unless we have to. And we need to work out, with the help of the Planning and Zoning Commission, what changes will be made if any. The sole purpose of these is to discuss so you can have some alternatives to look at. Similar to when the Ski Company came here and they brought 5 different drawings of how to handle Skier dropoff and that was discussed for an hour and a half. Finally P&Z decided which version of the skier dropoff they wanted to adopt. That is what we are trying to do. Greg: I am simply presenting something that is in the public record which you are not presented with here. And that is, please pass this around because it is rather important. Look in the lower right hand corner and see that there are three buildings outlined on plan C. Building 1 has 12 one-bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units. Building 3 has 14 one-bedroom units. You are not presented with that here. The original proposal provided for one-bedroom units. This proposal is talking about apartments for lodges for more than one-bedroom units. What I am getting at is essentially just one point. And that is that the applicant doesn't know what he is trying to propose to you. You don't know what the applicant is trying to propose because the applicant hasn't a clue. He knows that he has been granted 39 units. He is trying to provide you with the best schematic drawing he can to try and fill up the 39 units. It has nothing to do at all with the original proposal that was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning staff and by you. You didn't even get this until today. How in the world can you consider this at this point or any point in the near future because it is a new proposal. It is not a new proposal, it is 3 new proposals. Hyatt: I think that that piece of paper you have there is was a document left with the Planning & Zoning that has a lot of Mr. Cantrup's own personal notes on it. I am not working with those numbers. All of those personal notes on those are his own notes that he has left and someone has copied it and somehow that got on the record. It could have been a grocery list written on that sheet. 15" Greg: So we are to assume then that the one end is one-bedroom units. Hyatt: They are one-bedroom units. GMP rating. Steve: Plan #1 is the original. trying to clear the public record to no problem with it. Wel ton: The footpr int of Site Plan A is the same as the footprint of site plan B. B has 39 units instead of 58 units. Therefore very little is changed from what was scored in GMP with site plan A. It is a matter of lowering it and trying different circulation patterns. It has to be that for the I think that Paul is just be sure that there will be Hyatt: The building footprint is the same. We have lowered from 58 to 39 units. The concept of these buildings originally had center spaces not dissimilar from the Jerome with units around them. When you go from 58 units down to 39 units, I may look at condensing the buildings even more now because it may make sense to look at a different core plan within that configuration. But in order for us to keep the same GMP application, it seemed to us that one of the biggest items was bulk and height. A criteria that everyone has is lower building. We would also like to see more open space. Site plan C: All this is is to show that Juan Street remains. We can do a project here and there will be some zoning here. This is by no means a representation of that. It is just to show a roadway system and that is all. One of the things that we did do when we moved the road is the building is no longer sitting on the alleged Austin property. There is no building on that piece of property. Welton: If the section of the parcel of property you are still asking for the R-15 to change. You density and/or FAR as if it had not been changed. is zoned R-15, are basing the Is that true? Doug: We have this little keyhole here which is R-15. We are still pursuing rezoning this section but not this. We feel that this is a logical line. There is L-2 around up the hill down the hill and off to the East. This should be L-2. The Ski Company started a rezoning request and then they dropped it. I am still not exactly sure why they did that because the parking was and is a non-conforming use to that site. I don't know how it has been allowed to remain a R-15. That, according to the legal definition is truly spot zoning when it is surrounded by L-2. We weren't quite as secure with those last 4 lots on the right. That is one of the compromises we are willing to make is to back off on those 4--not to increase the density, not to put anything on it. /I, Paul: Could you show them where this transition land is. Hyatt: There has been some confusion on that subject. And Mr. Richman and Mr. Burstein admitted to us the other day that the transition line is actually not striking our property but is the other side of it. In other words, our property is not in the transition zone. Doug: This is all zoned with the exception of this little piece and this piece. And I don't have a blown up drawing of this but our site right here and the transition zone starts here and runs up the hill. Steve: I think this was clarified at our last meeting that we stated that the transition line basically goes below the mine dumps and above the project site, not including the mine dumps portion of it. The transition concept is a general concept and we believe the R-15 zoning is embodied in that to keep a low density, to keep a certain transition type of development as you go towards the mountain as well as up the mountain. And that general concept should be considered and is still a matter which we are very concerned about. Welton asked for further public comment. Greg: same. two by Under the site plan C, the square footage might be the But isn't the density significantly larger than the other the mere fact of having 3 buildings instead of 2. Welton: going where site. We don't know that yet. Conceptually they are just to show the street patterns. And if Juan Street stays it is, then the building gets fractured and split on the Greg: What I am saying is that you all are very confused by what they have proposed and I think everyone is. Welton: We are all in the same boat. Welton asked for any further public comment. Fred Smith of Lift One Condominiums. I am not speaking for Lift One Condominium Association. I really did not know this was about to happen. The last meeting we had of the owners, we talked about this proposal and we feel that they have taken into account all the neighbors including Timberridge. C, to us, is a totally unacceptable approach to it. I masses, all the density immediately in front of us. Juan has always been a non-street. There has never been any parking on it. There is not any through traffic on it. It opens up that area zoned R-15 that you are trying to keep as a transition. It seems to us that A or B is 17 ,------.,..._.'"---,--.- the way to go. Steve: Doug Allan said that the allocations were not certain for the residential competition until December of last year. He is right with regard to GMP exemptions. We don't tabulate those until basically the time of the competition and so there is some uncertainty but there is not the same degree of uncertainty for applicants not knowing what is going on with basically 3 years of allocation, 85, 86 and 87. Furthermore with regard to magnitude of changes, I think it is still basically up to the P&Z to consider what they feel is appropriate. But I did take a look at Resolution 84-11 that Tom Kerwin had referenced in some meetings with the Aspen Mountain Lodge to get a concept of what City Council had done. Basically there is in the conditions of clarification of architecture, clarification of street impact and mitigation of those impacts, a clarification of the hotel ownership and management. That is about it. That was the bulk of what was accomplished by the resolution of City Council when they had gone through their processes. I still would believe that the magnitude change of this project is considerably more relative to the size of the projects. My last point is that everyone is looking at the project to see whether it looks like they have addressed a lot of the concerns and I think that we really are getting some improvements. I think they really are moving forward. But we haven't had a chance to review it. The staff, including the Engineering, hasn't and I think again you have to be concerned about what is the proper procedure for doing an amendment to a project when it is a GMP and a subdivision application of this sort. Welton: In looking at this and feeling a lot more sure about what I am seeing now than before, I don't see anything called by as such a dramatic change that it is a different project. The footprint looks the same to me as A and B. How does the Commission feel as to how to proceed on this thing. Jim Colombo: We should set up our schedule so as to work with the applicant. I personally am in favor of working with the applicant. I don't see any dramatic changes in utilization of the content that are changing the project totally. I see improvements at this stage. I would be willing to go ahead and work with the applicant rather than have him come back. Mari: I would rather see them come back. We don't know what is going on. I do think the changes are in the right direction. We don't do this for other people after they pass the threshold. Welton: Yes we do. David: I want some clarification. They passed the threshold from us, went on to Council and Council gave them 39 units of J~ ""_~_____.__...,c__.",_.,,._,",~,.,_~_._~ 0' ";_.~_Y" '.'~'___' ""'o~",,'~___"""'_' ___..__~........-';__"'.. residential. Steve: No, there is scoring and that is the other reviews. has seen it so far. not allocation. It is only gone through it. It has been tabled with regard to Council has not seen this at all. Only GMP all P&Z David: Our charge then is to recommend allotment, not to look at rezoning overall. There is a lot of confusion. Basically we are looking at rezoning. We are looking at where the roads go. Steve: Conceptual subdivision and then protocol is to make all the reviews pertinent to the project and send it on to Council. David: It is two thirds the size of what it was in rough conf iguring looking at square footage. This is very positive. What bothers me is there is so much new being presented and I am having a hard time getting hold of it. I don't know that I want to send you all back to do the whole thing over again. I wish Paul was here so he could realize what we might be doing in setting a precedent and I am real concerned about setting any kind of precedent where we blow the whole thing apart basically. Is this a lodge unit? Are you putting in new lodges or is this a residential unit and you want us to put it in residential? One time you say it is a lodge unit and you want to compete with those lodges there. The other time you say you are going for residential units and you want to go residential. So I am just saying you can't use the residential benefits when you want to say residential and use the lodge benefits when you say lodge units. I think that with the smaller in size and other things like that, I would be willing to work with you and come back. I have not liked the ownership situation on the property all the way along. I think that we are totally wrong in doing that. Our City attorney advises us that it is OK so I have to go ahead and do that because I work for the City. But if I had a choice of it, I would say when the property is clearly owned then you come to us. Otherwise you can't just go continually with who owns the property and who owns this and who owns that. What this does for us is open up to anybody who wants to come before us and make a proposal without having any kind of a deal on any property, just go ahead and make a proposal, we have to take it. I personally don't like that. My feeling is like Jim Colombo, come on with it but I am not real happy with some of the things that are going on. Doug: You don't have to own a property at all. All you have to do is have it under option. David: There have always been questions about the option all the way along. And so my feeling is that this question about the 1'1 option is that you don't even have to own the option. So all of a sudden you get into a situation where there is a lot of attorneys in this room. They just go and they say OK we have seen what Council has done, we have seen what P&Z has done, now we will go ahead and play that same game again. All of a sudden what we have done, we are skirting what the law is. The law is set up one way and all of a sudden we are creating a whole set of new laws. I am just real concerned about that. Doug: May I tell you that on the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the Roberts thing was in an identical situation for 2 and one half years, he was held in an unclear situation. So there is a parallel. We will reconvince the City attorney and satisfy that requirement for you. Hyatt: I agree with you on the land. As the architect I have a little bit of a difficulty sometimes too in understanding all the land and all the land options. I don't understand it either. Roger Hunt: I will continue on this land issue because I worry about letters from attorneys to attorneys concerning land because the Aspen Highlands continued on forward without an option on a piece of property and they got approvals still without an option on a piece of property even though the attorneys with their boiler plate and their going around Murphy's Bar and managed to convince each other that they had an option. I will be devastating on this subject when it comes up. I have an extremely grave problem with rezoning property that you don't have under option. And, in effect, my rhetorical question at this point is why do you need to rezone if you are building residential type units? You can go right in and build residential type units in L-2 and R-15 LP&Z. To me the underlying zoning determines the size of the project. That is where I am coming from. I have to join Mari's concern about the project. I think she was right on. If I have to be put to it, I am willing to work with the applicant. I would much rather see it come back as a new project. You just don't have a clean thing to work with here. So I would prefer seeing it come back as a new project. Jasmine: I think one of the reasons I have such a hard time with this project from the very beginning is that it has never been either fish or fowl. It has always been q. residence but it is going to be a lodge. It is going to be run as a lodge, but it is going to be a residence. But when we zone it to lodge, it is going to be approved for this number of residential units, etc. And David pointed out before the kind of "I want the best of both worlds" that has been the approach of this project. I have always had a real difficult time coming to grips with it. It seems to me that the changes substantial enough that it would 20 "~'."_ _~._ _~.,.._._ "....~___._. ".w_'__ be a lot easier and a lot cleaner to come in with a new project and I think that if you want to have rezoning, then you should apply under the lodge competition because these are going to be short term and it is going to be operated as a hotel. I would much prefer to see that happening because I think that reflects a much more accurate picture of what this project is going to be ultimately. I think it would give the whole community a better idea of what is going to happen and to address the kind of impact that a lodge type operation on this site would have. I think that there is nothing wrong with a lodge type operation on this site. If it requires a rezoning to accomplish it, well fine, let us look at it in terms of the advantages and drawbacks of that particular type of usage on that particular type of property. I could not go along with a rezoning to L-2 for residential property. I don't think that makes any sense. I think that the applicant can make a really good condominiamized lodge property on this site with a new proposal which would be pretty much in the general direction that they have been going anyway. This would work out to be a project that we could all sort of endorse in a wholehearted fashion. I would much rather see this come in as a new project along the lines of what they have already done but with everything clean and let us know exactly what we are dealing with. Ramona: I have a real problem with the communion approach that has been used on this project over the last 6 months. We don't know whether HBC Investments owns this property, has a controlling interest in the property, even has an option on the property. Before we approve a project for this property, I would like to know for sure that we are indeed approving it for the owner. There is a great deal of property west of Garmisch Street which mostly belongs to the Barbee family. I don't see that Garmisch Street in either configurations in A or B really services all of the Barbee property. I think we should have more information on traffic circulation in that area before we can really make a definitive judgment on it. I am willing to work with everybody. I think we have worked with a lot of other projects but I don't really see much future in continuing to have sessions like tonight when we really don't have information that is necessary to arrive at a decision. I know we don't have to arrive at a decision tonight but how many months or years are we going to go on with this before we do arrive at a decision. Welton: The decision we need to make tonight is whether or not to have a motion to deny the rezoning, the concept ual subdivision, street vacation and basically send them back to start the GMP process allover again or whether somebody can make a motion to continue this public hearing for further discussion as to the amendment to a GMP application and these other matters. Roger: I make a motion recommending that the applicant re-apply at the appropriate time. 21 Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll Call: Jim Colombo, no, Ramona Markalunas, no, Mari Peyton, yes, Roger Hunt, yes, David White, yes, Jasmine Tygre, yes, Welton Anderson, no. Tom: I have in my files an offer from the present anticipated owner. I don't know how much you folks know about the Trump/Commerce, Roberts/Aspen Ski Corporation real title fiasco. It has been in court now for a year and a half and I have a proposal from Mr. Bob Hughes that says we would like to extend regardless of all the litigation that has gone on between Mr. Cantrup's option in any event. And I spoke with Mr. Bob Hughes just a few moments before this meeting started and he again reiterated that. Some of you seem to be concerned that there is uncertainty about that subject. There is not uncertainty from our standpoint. There has been no uncertainty from Paul Taddune's standpoint and I think you should understand that we cannot come back and re- apply in December because we can't wait that long. We would have to go to court. The legal ramifications of going to court involve all the people I have just mentioned. It isn't feasible for us to just go back and re-apply. The court hearing which you may have seen recorded in the paper resulted in an agreement between Roberts and Commerce by which Roberts, in effect, turned over this property and he got a special deal in connection with the other site. You are soon going to have a completely new application from Mr. Trump on the Aspen Mountain Lodge. You are going to have a legal question of discrimination. You dealt with Mr. John Roberts during a period of about a year when he had no rights on the property. His contract went to the Federal Judge, and was reversed, thrown out of court. Mr. Cantrup was there and I was there the day that happened. They started to go through the process again in court and a new contract was entered into a year later. So you have an identical situation and you continued right along with him. What we are going to have to contend is that the City of Aspen is discriminating against Mr. Cantrup and in favor of these other people. That is why I thought you ought to know about that. There does seem to be a progress going on here and I am uncertain to what extent--and I would ask you to reconsider your vote--to what extent the uncertainty about the legal status. Mr Taddune is familiar with it. He is not in the room right now. I have asked Paul to verify this by talking to Bob Hughes himself. I have been directing that to the mass of the property, not to the 4 lots involving Austin because except for seeing that letter, I am not really familiar with that. Welton: Another motion is necessary to make that last vote more 22. '---'.--_.'-"'-'''~- '--.'-"." .-",-~,"-","-"'" formal. Page 4 of the Planning Office memo is a recommendation of the rezoning conceptual, street vacation and consider cash in lieu of employee housing. Roger Hunt: I will move to 1) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested rezoning of Lots 3-12, Block II, Eames Addition from R-15(PUD) (L) to L-2 Lodge; and further 2)Recommend to City Council to deny the requested conceptual subdivision approval for the Mountain View project; and to 3)Recommend to City Council to deny the requested street vacation of Juan Street and 4)Recommend to City Council to not accept the proposed cash-in-liew payment for employee housing based on denial of the other reviews associated with the project. I want to include in this motion the reason for this is that l)The majority of the P&Z felt that this was more than just a significant modification of the application. And 2)That there does appear to be some sort of cloud on a portion of the property that is used in computation for the development. Jasmine: I don't think you should put that last clause in. That is not part of my reasoning. I will second it without that stipulation. Roger: I will withdraw it then. Roll Call Vote: Jim Colombo, no, Ramona Markalunas, no, Mari Peyton, yes, Roger Hunt, yes, David White, yes, Jasmine Tygre, yes, Welton Anderson, no. Roger: I would also like to move to recommend to City Council that if they agree with this project and it should go ahead for whatever reason that the P&Z is willing to work with the applicant as best as possible to progress. David White Seconded this motion with all in favor. METS6LURA. RBSTAURAN'l COImITImII<L-usE Glen Horn: This application is for conditional use in the C-l very similar to the application you considered for Sumo's a few years ago. It gets to be a question as to whether the restaurant is local oriented or not and what type of conditions should be placed on it. We are recommending approval with the 5 conditions that are listed in my memorandum. Gideon Kaufman representing the applicant: Number 3 states that live music shall be prohibited. What we would like to see that say is live, loud, amplified music shall be prohibited. But a piano bar would be permitted. Number 5 states the restaurant shall remain open during the 23 --~,._,._,+.----- spring and falloff-seasons. In our application we said that the restaurant would be open virtually year round. We are willing to commit that we will be open all year round except for 5 five weeks. We feel 5 weeks is a bare minimum to be allowed to close. With those conditions. owner s. slight modifications we have no problem with the I have 4 letters of support from adjacent property Glen: I have had one call from Don Lemos who owns the parking lot nearby and he wants it known that people who go to this restaurant and park in his lot will have their cars booted. Welton then opened the public hearing. There was no comment from the public. Welton closed the public hearing. The Commission then discussed what constituted amplification of music and the period of time the restaurant would be closed. Roger made a motion that 13 shall read--Music shall not be heard outside the premises. Add to IS--With the exception of 5 weeks. Jasmine seconded the motion. Jasmine: There has always been a problem with II in that you really cannot make a determination that a restaurant is locally oriented or not locally oriented. There really is no such thing. Making restrictions and conditions on this really don't make sense. With condition is--who are we to tell a restaurant when they should stay open and when they should close. I don't think that is appropriate and I would like the Planning Office and the P&z to take a closer look at C-l and this business of local restaurants because I think it is a farce. I think also that in v iew of some changes in that block in particular, wi th the exception of the Chateau Aspen Condominiums, that whole area is really more appropriately C-L or C-C. I think we should look at that as a general Clean-up action. Gideon: I would be happy not to have that 5 week restriction. We have that restriction that we shall remain open during the spring and falloff-season. We would be much more comfortable with 6 or 7 or no restriction at all. Jim Colombo: I am going to vote against this motion because of putting a restriction of time. Roger: The argument for allowing restaurants in the C-I in the first place was because restaurants were being priced out of the market. So we needed to find a place for them but to keep it 2lf --.---_.----_.-_....,-''''~-,~.....-,.-._--'- locally or iented and being locally or iented, to have year round service. Five weeks is a lot of off-time if you are looking at having a restaurant for local consumption. The C-l zone was for the purpose of enhancing local activity. The point was made here that at the off-season, the locals are all gone to Mexico anyway. Roger: Perhaps the direction restaurants in the C-l zone. restaurants. we should go is start prohibiting It is not an appropriate zone for Gideon: As long as the code reads that it is a conditional use, you can't just deny them. Roger: But in those conditions, it has to be locally oriented. David: I don't know how we can enforce that. It seems to me it would be very diff icul t. The thing about 5 weeks and locally oriented--The Mother Lode is locally oriented. There isn't anyone in this room that I haven't seen in the Mother Lode. We do a tremendous tourist business and we close for 4 and 1/2 months. This 5 weeks is not comfortable for me. I don't think we can tell a business how to run. If we want the business to be around locally then we have to give them the ability to close when there is no business in town. Most of the locals don't have jobs in the off-season so they don't go out to dinner in April and Mayas they do in the summer or winter. Welton: There is a motion on the floor to approve with conditions being the same but i3 to read loud music shall be prohibited and .5 to add with the exception of 5 weeks. Roll Call: Jim Colombo, no, Ramona Markalunas, no, Mari Peyton, no, Roger Hunt, yes, David White, no, Jasmine Tygre, yes, Welton Anderson, yes. Denied. Jim Colombo: I make a motion for approval with conditions '1 as existing, .2 as existing, .3 modified to read music not to be heard outside the building, i4 as existing and striking '5. Ramona seconded this motion. Roger: I would like the Planning Office t9 read the conditions under which an applicant has to apply for conditional use for a restaurant in the C-l zone. Glen: 12, whether the proposed use is consistant with the objectives and purposes of the zoning code in the applicable zoning district. The intent of the C-I zone district is to ::25" .----......., ..."~.--,,--_.- ~,.....'_....._~__...._~_v.~_^____' provide "when the establishment of commercial uses which are not primarily oriented toward serving the tourist population." The intent to provide for the establishment of commercial uses which are not primarily oriented toward serving the tourist population. Restaurant is a conditional use. The criteria: The key concern is whether or not it is locally oriented. The interpretation of this is up to your discretion. Welton asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. Everyone voted in favor of this motion except Roger Hunt. MOSES 8646 GRBEHL IRE -RIN'fEW Glen Horn: You are familiar with the Moses Property from the rezoning and creation of two lots that we went through this winter. The parcel is within 50 yards of the 8040 Greenline and therefore must go through 8040 Greenline Review. It is Gaard's intention to tear down one of the buildings on the property and reconstruct on the existing footprint. I don't think visual concerns are very pertinent to this case because the site is very well screened due to the topography. It is in a bench down below Little Nell. I do want to point out there was a miner mud flow there this spring. It caused some concern on our part as well as Gaard's in designing this properly. The conditions associated with our recommendation and the recommendation of this approval is that representations made by the applicant will be adhered to. There will be mitigation measures such deflection walls and burms that should be constructed. This is consistant with the recommendation from a consultant that Gaard has hired. Finally you have got this one phrase in the letter from the consultant that said that additional studies are recommended prior to building. I am not sure whether he put it in there just to cover himself in terms of potential danger in the future. He is concerned about larger mud flow in Spar Gulch. Jay Hammond, the City Engineer, was concerned about it and therefore we are recommending that the City Engineer be satisfied about the mud flow conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit. This is at the request of the City Engineer. This is the only outstanding issue. Gideon Kaufman representing Gaard Moses: The letter from Chen & Associates reads "In our opinion there is a potential for larger degree of flows. Additional studies should be undertaken to determine the probable degree flow and water flow impacts. Mitigation measures such as deflecting walls and burms may be 2' ,-~_"_"'__"""""'_""'''_.._.,......,.".".~___.''''_''..._.., ",'-'c~'~''''__;.._ "_'~-""._'_~ required to protect the new residents.w Now it seems to me since we are, as a condition, willing to say that we will build the deflecting walls and burms that we are satisfying the conditions. It says mitigation measures mn be required. They may mzt. be required. But if we are willing to put them in anyway it seems to me we have potentially satisfied the concern that is addressed here. Gaard has lived up there for 20 years and there has never been a problem before. During this process we were co-erced into giving the Nordic Council a trail. Nordic Council put their trail in and after the trail went in, there is a mud slide. Gaard doesn't want to build a house that is going to get wiped out. Jim Colombo: You are saying you are going to go ahead and put in the retaining walls at this time? Gideon: Yes. Ramona: When you put in the deflecting walls then what happens to the mud flow? This is above the Aspen Chance. Gideon: When the Aspen Chance came in they put in a large floodway channel. Gaard has a smaller one above it and what happened was that when this particular slide came it basically stayed in the channel on his property. A little of the mud sluffed off and the rest went down the Aspen Chance. When we do the burm it will all be directed into the channel instead of coming down the Alps Road. Jasmine: I would assume that the reason that .3 is included is to protect the City from potential law suits resulting from any construction that would then eventually be related to mud flows either on Gaard's property or anybody else's. The question is of the City liability in giving a permit and the potential damages coming as a result of this no matter how far fetched and what the City's liability is in that situation. Roger: I move to approve the Moses 8040 Greenline Review of the subject to condition '1 being the same as in the Planning Office memo dated 6/16/87. Condition i2 being the same as in the same memo except that shall include to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Condition i3 being struck. Jim Colombo seconded the motion with all in favor. ft)lU'EII <>.LAEIdI MARGIII ftlNIBW Glen: The main thing here is this particular site is not in danger from the Roaring Fork River. The building envelope is not in danger and if we had a staff review mechanism, we would sign 27 .,~~-----..._-_._._--_..._-_._-,._-~-------_.~,. off on this. We can't do it because of the code. It is the type of thing we would like to clean up. We recommend approval of this stream margin review. Roger: I move to approve the Torpen Stream Margin Review. David White seconded the motion with all in favor. Jim Colombo made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Jasmine with all in favor. The time was 7:IS pm. J.~i:r~l~De;"t~ ~;e'k :<6'