Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890620 ( ( I- I ~ diU' 1\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Michael Herron and Graeme Means arrived immediately after roll call. Bruce Kerr was excused. Jim Colombo was absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION Roger made a motion to re-affirm the present appointments of officers. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. . STAFF COMMENTS Tom Baker: Last time P&Z had 2 requests. One was to get some legal opinions from Fred regarding potential exposure for litigation. The other issue was on recycling. Discussion followed with Fred Gannett regarding the litigation liability with issues. and the Commission regard to land use Discussion was then held between Keren Martin, Jim Duke and Commission regarding recycling. Graeme: There are 2 things on the agenda tonight which I was interested in bringing up recycling with. The reason is that they are relatively large projects. Do you think it would be appropriate when we approve large projects to place conditions on certain approvals regarding recycl ing efforts. It makes sense with larger projects. Tom: This would be the time to talk about this sort of thing. MINUTES APRIL 25. 1989 Jasmine made a motion to approve minutes of April 25, 1989. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM6.20.89 ( MCCLAIN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Leslie Lamont of the Planning Department made presentation. (attached in record) Leslie presented a revision of condition #5. (attached in record) Roger: nothing '/ANN Sunny: It will probably require some form of structural support very similar to the decks that were done on the lot next door. As long as appropriate techniques are taken in the design the slope stabilization should not be a problem. We are not going to be taking up the whole slope to build a building foundation. The #3 deck being pegged down on the cantilevered deck means that there is ground. Right? Michael: My only comment is in connection with #5. Even in the revision of #5 shouldn I t there be language in there that says they have to remove it? Sunny: We were trying to find a solution that didn't do more damage to solve the problem than we caused originally. What we propose to do is identify the extent of the impact it has. If that impact is minimal through the process which FEMA would allow us to amend the flood plain map which absolves the City of any liability. If it is a significant impact then the Engineering Department will require us to come in and certify the extent of the fill and make appropriate measures to remove it. Michael: That language and that concept is not expressed in any of the conditions. It should read "amount of material shall be removed". Sunny: The conditions are acceptable to us with the exception of a portion of #6. The code requires the dedication of trail. In this case there is no trail. There is no requirement for a fisherman I s easement. Fisherman do routinely move up and down the river. They are more than willing to grant an easement across that portion of their property which lies within the river so that the fishermen can continue to go there. We object, however, to the imposition of a 5ft additional ease- ment across their property. There is no code requirement for it. Leslie: In the plan map on the where they show the existing and the proposed across the river from the parcel there is a proposed trail that is intended to come out at the Gordon Callahan Bridge crossing and Cooper Street Bridge going across. And then the map does also indicate that there is a proposed open space corridor 2 PZM6.20.89 along starting in this subdivision and moving along the Roaring Fork River. Mari: What is the difference between open space easement and a fisherman's easement? Tom: We are attempting to do this in the county as well. We are not trying to pressure the P&Z into doing something they are uncomfortable with. But we are interested in having access to all the streams and rivers throughout the County. Leslie's point is that there is an open space system as well as a trail system and that fisherman's access request is for 5ft above the high water line just along the bank. MOTION Michael: I am not comfortable with taking 5ft of these people's property because there is something proposed across the river. I don't think that is particularly fair. Based upon that I would like to make a motion that we accept the Planning Department's recommendation for stream Margin Review change to paragraph 5 and deleting #6. Jasmine seconded the motion. Welton: I am not comfortable with not taking the 5 feet in an easement for the fisherman's easement or open space easement. If we didn't do it on the one next door, the one next door is going to come back in in 2 or 3 year's time with some additional development proposal and that would be the time to get that and create these lanes to connect them all together. I would vote for a motion to include all the Planning Office's recommendations as listed with #5 being amended but not deleting it. Graeme: What are the applicant's problems with granting that 5ft easement? I would like to understand a little better how far the proposed deck and the existing decks are from the 5ft line. Also whether the normal pedestrian path, if someone were walking up that river, is in the 5ft or is in the floodway. sunny: I don't necessarily object to a fisherman's easement. I do object to having a set of codified requirements and then exacting it as a condition thereto. If you want to go back and amend your code to reflect, as a policy, that from now on we are going to take fisherman's easements and establish criteria, as a system of those easements, that is fine. But to all of a sudden decide to take fisherman's easements and exact them as this discretionary review is inappropriate. 3 ....,.~ PZM6.20.89 Having said that in tl'\is particular case the lower deck is adjacent or just above the high water line. In fact the results of our analysis may require us to remove a portion of that deck. You couldn't build a trail along there in a 5ft above the high water line without running into the same problems which Leslie is concerned about with the deck itself. We would prefer not to encourage people walking along that slope. Forget the fact that it is in their back yard. Just as a practical matter, people walk up the river in low flow to fish. We are willing go give an easement portion across that portion of the river. To encourage pedestrian traffic when it is not even a trail and the likelihood of building a trail is very remote, doesn't make any sense. Graeme: It seems to me that it is not going to change. So that doesn't make any sense. If we did grant this 5ft easement then it might end back--you send a signal to the City that they could potentially put a trail in which I don't think is what needs to be done. Sunny: The trail is on the other side because the terrain blends itself to a trail because that is the flood plain on that side of the river. To build a trail along that portion you do more disruption than the building of the deck itself. Michael: I don't think legally we can impose this either because it is not in the code. We can't just discretionarily take people's property. I think we should talk to the city Attorney before we start doing that. Roger: What about the wording of the fisherman's easement adjacent to the water line? Not specify--either high or low. Fishermen are supposed to be fishing at the water line as opposed to any specified distance ashore. Sunny: I would water line to somebody to walk suggest from the the applicant's up the river. knee high water line--the high property line which enables Roger: In other words a fisherman I s easement between the high water line and the center line of the river. Michael amended his motion. Jasmine amended her second. Leslie My concern was to do with the fact that if they are going to build a deck there that the vegetation would have to be removed. 4 .- PZM6.20.89 f ~unny: The deck is away from the edge of the river. The concern J.s you don't want to make sure that we tear up the slope in building the deck. We agreed in our application to use acceptable standards to build the foundation for that deck. The city's interest is protected in that we have agreed to submit the plans to the Engineering Department to make sure that we are not adversely affecting the slope. You also raised a problem about into the setback. What we are simply relocate that internal encroachment would go away. the stairwell #2 which encroaches proposing to do at this point is to the improvements such that Roger: I need clarification that already supported from cantilevered deck? about deck #3. pylons or is Is the deck over the upper deck a Sunny: It is cantilevered. Roger: So it is the addition of a new deck that will require some sort of pylon for support. All voted in favor of the motion. CAP'S LAND TRADE REZONING/SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There were no public comments and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to rezone and approve this subdivision request as it is in the community's interest and recommend approval with a condition that the City file a final plat to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN GREENS FINAL PUD PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Tom Baker: Made presentation as attached in record. Tom stevens: This project has gone through a massive program change. We have re-designed from scratch. Where we are at right 5 ,~;,.... PZM6.20.89 now there are 46 apartments all permanent residency for a total of 84 bedrooms. Primarily it is studio. There are 8 studios and 38 2-bedroom apartments. However 4 of the studio apartments have a fairly sizeable loft and come in at about 556sqft. So you could actually interpret those as 1-bedroom apartments. The site plan has changed from the seasonal housing to permanent housing in the fact that it is now 2 large buildings instead of 4 small buildings. What this does for us is it gives us more usable site space. The amount of open space that is there now is condensed into half as many parcels as before. So it is more usable. Also it gives us a little more opportunity to undulate the facade of the building and attempt to make the building more attractive. coming out of Council there was a request to look into auto disincentives. We looked at providing 86 cars instead 114. 114 is as per code. As part of the disincentive what we have looked at doing is reducing the number of cars, managing those cars that are on site. In other words priority rental to non-drivers or people that don't have cars and then the people that do have cars will be issued a window sticker in an attempt to control the actual number of parking. We have also negotiated with the city on 20 spaces during winter months and the existing City parking lot as overflow/guest parking. In addition to that we have gotten with RFTA and will be initiating a van-pool service specific to this project. RFTA will lease to the Housing Authority a 10-passenger van, maintain it, pay for lease payments, pay for gasoline and then the Housing Authority will provide a driver. The Housing Authority will also set the schedule for the van/pool so that it best serves the needs of the people specific to this project. We are trying to get mass transit off Hwy 82 to where it can pick people up right in the parking lot and take them into town. We are trying to eliminate the need for people to cross Hwy 82, give them their own shuttle service right inside the project itself. This will be a van/shuttle. There will be a full-time driver or whatever the schedule requires from the project. That schedule will be specific to this project. That means we have eliminated 26 cars. The parking lot that we have eliminated is what is now an existing tennis court. Now in response to conditional approval we have added a half-court basketball court and a volley ball facility and additional landscaping. The schedule of the project has not changed from its original 6 PZM6.20.89 conception. year. The building is still not viewable from the highway. From the 9th fairway of the golf course we are still providing berming along that side. We are trying to keep it minimal so that it doesn't look like a man-made earth fence. The berm serves 2 functions. That is to restrict, at least mentally, play of the 9th fairway as well as reduce the aesthetics of the building from the fairway from 2 stories to 1. It will be ready for occupancy December of this We have also increased the amount of planting along that side of the building to further separate the residents of the project from the 9th fairway. All of the units are along the golf course and we will have at least visual access to the golf course. with the change to permanent residency some of the outdoor amenities that we had decided to provide changed. Originally the project was seen as MAA students in the summer. with more permanent residency and more of a family orientation we have also included a children's play area/barbecue pit in the center of the 2 buildings. Roger: Just eliminating parking spaces is not an disincentive. It may be less cars parked there but if you the people with cars, where are they going to park the car? auto have Tom: That is exactly it. I don't really see auto disincentive as penalizing people but actually making mass transportation more convenient. There are 2 ways to approach the number of cars on site. As to an auto disincentive plan no one element of this plan works on its own. It all has to work together. And judging whether or not it works--it is probably going to be a year down the road. If it does work--great. If it doesn't work then we are going to have to provide more parking. We still have the space to do it. The pavement is still there and we still can do it. I just think that we need to make an attempt to do this. Tom Baker: The Council gave the applicant some strict direction. That is what they are responding to. Jasmine: The thing that concerns me about the leasing and the preferential treatment given to people without cars is that it is virtually unenforceable. You are going to be chasing your tails for nothing. Graeme: I saw that the applicant has resisted plowing the bikeway because it is used as a ski trail which being a skier I know that it isn't. 7 , PZM6.20.89 I saw in the site plan that there are 24ft long bicycle racks. And it is $15,000 cash-in-lieu for a parking space. So we are valuing a parking space at $15,000. I think if we were to spend $15,000 to $30,000 on a really good bicycle program we would be not only saving the parking space but a lot of the traffic. I think for that $30,000 we would be making an enormous improvement. I think :the bicycle thing should be stressed. There should be a covered area for bicycles. If that were paved into town I think people would use it. If 4 people used it then that is at $15,000 per parking space that is $60,000 worth of parking spaces that we have saved. That is if 4 people road their bicycles. I don't think this applicant has addressed the bicycle issue. Tom Stevens: Regarding bicycle storage--there is square footage available under the existing building and there will be square footage available under the proposed building for bicycle parking. Peter Dobrovolny, Architect: What we have done is to put storage underneath of the buildings. When we realized that we had to sprinkle the buildings we needed to have the room for sprinkler equipment and other equipment. The obvious place for it was underground. It can be relatively inexpensively space underneath the buildings and can easily be used for bicycle storage and other storage. Graeme: I don't think it would be used for day to day basis for someone who rides a bicycle. The turn around at the south or east end of the project'there--could there be separate from the buildings a covered pavilion that could be quite attractive that could park 50 to 60 bicycles. There also needs to be some kind of way to get onto the bike path preferably without going all the way out to parking lot and back around. Those are the kinds of things that are going to have to happen to make the bike thing work. Tom stevens: What was originally envisioned as a management building is no longer going to be a management office. It was a code problem as to what it was going to cost to bring that building up to code. That could be easily use for bicycles. Roger: Does each uni t storage? It is extremely have designated storage. have its own locked and designated necessary in such a project as this to Dobrovolny: What we will do is essentially 2 full apartments worth of space will be put under each building for storage. It is about 2,000sqft altogether for the whole project. Each will have separate lockers. 8 ...."" PZM6.20.89 Welton opened the public hearing. steve Conger: I live right across the road from this project. I am not sure people understand how bad the car situation is out there. First of all I live on the other side of the highway. If I want to drive down valley it will often take me 5 minutes before there is a stop. That is for 1 car to get across the road to turn left. The time it is the worst is in the summer when you get people coming in and out of town at the same time. If you are coming from the Red Roof's side you are going to have to get in to that stream of traffic that is coming up that is almost non-stop. The amount of cars in this reduced version is 70. If you have that many people turning left at a peak time of day going into town and it takes me 5 minutes to turn left--and it is getting worse every year. In the summer there are times when traffic is backed up past that area in both directions. The bike issue is not like an elective for this project. It is like a mandatory. Fairly drastic measures have to be taken to try to make this situation manageable. The thing that concerns me the most is that there is going to have to be a light there. If there is a light there what that does it backs up cars. And it creates a pollution problem that is a lot worse because cars are idling. So for the neighborhood there is going to be more carbon monoxide. I am not against the project at all. There is a desperate need for employee housing and this is an area for it. I am worried that the air quality is going to go down with a light there. Tom Baker: In discussions with Rich because of the existing 'traffic and the from this project that there will need from down valley into the project deceleration lanes out and in the project. Persky he is convinced increment that is added to be a left turn lane and acceleration and Council was fairly adamant that a traffic signal was not the answer at this intersection. The Highway Department has indicated that they would not require a traffic signal although it would require channelization. RFTA is going to do the high occupancy vehicle lane from the Maroon Creek Bridge to the Castle Creek Bridge. That is going to, in effect, add an additional lane for busses. Rich Persky felt that it might be appropriate that the Housing has about $40 9 PZM6.20.89 to $60,000 that they can spend on an intersection and they would need a deceleration lane and an acceleration lane. Linda Conger: I live on the other side of the highway and when we come out to turn down valley, we are going to have to cross a high-occupancy vehicle lane and go across this where there are people waiting to turn left here. At the same time there are people coming out here trying to pull this way into town while we are trying to go this way. And it is not clear who is going to go first and which way they are going to pass. Plus you have busses stopping here and you have school busses stopping here. This is the site of the highest fatality accident in pitkin County history right here. Then you have the Jehovah's witnesses going in there and there are 125 cars there Thursday and Sunday and most of them are going down valley. Michael: I just don't understand, from a practical standpoint, how anybody can look at, this project and not consider the fact that you have to have a light. The impact of this development on that intersection is only going to be left turns. So all of those things that the Highway Department is suggesting is going to have no effect on it whatsoever. These people are not going to be leaving this project to go any place other than into Aspen. I don't see how we can do this without a light. Tom: We represented that to Council. Elizabeth Nathan: I work at the Housing Authority. with the golf course and soft ball there are already a lot of people going in and out. This proj ect is the straw that broke the camel's back. It needs to be recognized that this project doesn't carry the burden of that intersection. Don Helmick: I live on the other side of the golf course on Snowbunny. I would like to second everything Steve has said about the traffic out there. It is already a problem and this project with the potential magnitude of vehicles you are bringing in there, it makes it absolutely gridlock. Maybe you say to this project there is no vehicles at all. And you put in an underpass. ' Spend $100, OOO--whatever you have to do and say that there are 2 ways to get in and out of town. #1 you take the bike which I think is great. The other is you have a designated parking lot somewhere else down the road a couple of miles or next to the RFTA bus barn. Put the underpass in which allows little kids who have to catch the school bus or somebody 10 ';;,*"'" PZM6.20.89 who just has to get to work. You put the underpass in and they go under and they catch a RFTA bus that is going into town. My other concern is that they play 350 rounds of golf a day out there. I think you have got real serious safety considerations with the highway. I am in favor of the project. We need it and it is good but I think we really have to consider the safety factors. You really need intensive management to make this thing work. If you don't control the parking you will have people who don't even live there who will be driving in and parking there because they can't find a place in the existing lot. Jim Adamski: I understand what the neighbors are saying. I understand the highway is a problem. I also understand that people are getting killed on that highway. Most of us folks live down valley. The reason for doing employee housing is to bring people off that highway. That is what we are trying to do here. And we are trying to do it in a real istic fashion that isn't going to break the backs of the people who are living there or cause any other impact. You already have the impacts. They are there. soft ball. You have your golfers. We are trying off the highway by bringing them closer to town. You have your to get people Linda Conger: I think t~ere is a problem now but I think adding another 80 cars is completely out of the question. I think we have to have extreme auto disincentive policies. It is going to take some new approaches and some radical approaches. One way might be to present the project as a car-free project. People need not apply who have cars. You let people know that ahead of time. Tom stevens: There is already a horrible traffic problem there. This project is making it worse. We have known that since day one. We have gotten a clear message from Council not to pursue lighting as a means of solving the problem. We got a clear message from Council to pursue auto disincentive and channelization of the highway. That is what we have pursued. Whether or not we are convinced that channelization of the highway and auto disincentive is going to solve the problem for us as applicants right now is irrelevant. That is what we were instructed to pursue. What this project cannot afford is a light. If a light has to go there, it has got to be a City or a Highway Department or RFTA expense. It cannot be at the expense of the renters of this project. 11 PZM6.20.89 Laurie stevens: I have been an employee for 10 years. And I don't understand why employees are the ones who are going to suffer and be the ones who can't drive our cars. But people who live right in town can. Employees are those who usually have a family and who need to come into town occasionally to work and get groceries, etc. And we are the ones who cannot have a car. This is ridiculous. It is the same thing as "Not in my back yard". I live in Carbondale. The Basalt bypass adds pollution. People are trying to come in from Basalt. People are cutting in. It is the same thing down valley. But that is OK. Granted this is a problem but the employees will have a home in Aspen and I tell you if 90% of the employees could ride their bikes to work, they would do it. The ones who are on the highway would love to ride their bikes to work. But for the ones who need to drive their cars--and can't drive their cars--that is totally unfair. steve Conger: What I have heard Tom say is that he has been instructed to solve this issue in a way that won't work. That is basically what is happening. Welton: It looks like we are boiled down to: Denying the whole thing out of hand because it is going to create too many added cars on Highway 82 and untenable additional burden on left turn traffic. I don't think anybody on this Board is going to approve that. Or we can approve it with as many automobile disincentives as we possibly can. That is what Graeme has been fighting for and what the City Council has offered and what we all want to do and realize after the fact that we have done something good. We have provided employee housing when the need is most. But we have an additiona~ problem on Highway 82 and we have got to go to the state and ask for a traffic light there or at ABC or somewhere else--someplace where a traffic light can create a holding. I live at the Villas right at the S' s. I go across Bleeker street on a daily basis with my dog. And you just have to wait a couple of minutes maybe and then you can get across. That is because of the light at Hyman. MOTION Michael: I think as a Planning Commission we are obligated to do some planning notwithstanding what the City Council wants or what the applicant can afford. 12 PZM6.20.89 I make a motion that we approve the project with a requirement that there be a light. I am not saying that the applicant should pay for it. The City council just discovered a surplus, they can peti tion the state. I don't care how they get alight but if there is any way to do it to protect the safety of the people I think that is probably the government's first function. We need to address the question about the bikes. Graeme: In terms of a light, I am not traffic engineer. I can't say they do or don't need a light or lanes. Maybe you are right but I couldn't support that for that reason. Welton: The bike question is left that that manager's building would serve. Graeme: And we have got the plowing of the trail. But they have said that they would not--they said before that they were trying to get us to drop that. Mari: How many shuttle buses are there going to be? Tom stevens: There w ill be 1 bus. dependent on demand. The number of trips is Mari: I really feel like there should be 2 at least. I was at the Plum Tree when it was operating as a hotel. They had 50 hotel rooms. At the max 100 people and it was never full. And they kept 2 vans going 16 hours a day to keep people from driving. Tom: It may very well be that we will need is right now we are givin<} this our best. There are no statistics that we can use. 2 vans. The problem There is no model. Roger: You might seriously consider putting at least a portion of that parking into storage parking where they require some lead time to get their car out to use it. An incentive on their rent by having no car. Mari: Regarding the underpass, I think that is a good idea. Tom Baker: We got an estimate from the Engineering Office of $75,000 for a pedestrian underpass. Dobrovolny: An estimate from the Highway Department for a Basalt underpass was $175,000. I know when Basalt went through this same process with the light there when the highway was finished everybody said we are 'Joi n'J to need a light there. And the Highway Department said "Ou,. figures show you don't". But they 13 PZM6.20.89 did monitor it and did have to install the light. That is the process they will have to go through. They will have to monitor it and see the amount of traffic themselves. Roger: entrance problem. Some of this might to town discussions. be addressed during the highway So we are looking at an interim Graeme: I agree with the underpass. As 82 becomes worse it becomes more of a division between cutting the valley in half and the more pedestrian access "!e can get through that the more pedestrians and bicycles there are going to be and I think that is what we are trying to do. Roger: These are shed roefs and it looks like you are dumping snow down into entrances. "'hat is going to be your method of snow control into these accr~sways. What kind of roof material is it going to be? Dobrovolny: They are Asphalt shingles because they will hold snow longer. The reason fcr the roof corning down here is so that it is not dumping snO\, on th0 steps. Mari: What about tr;ese exp00rl stairways? They are going to get snow and ice on them. Dobrovolny: The rlecisi c" "'as made not to put the storage underneath the sta in', >' . \". decided what we would do is build stairways like the oncs at "ntennial. It is going to be open underneath the stairways. Welton: I would like te 0ce a condition in here that the applicant will exrross t:. i,' fervent belief with the Highway Department that an undorn~"'nd/or light would be necessary and is probably going to be Lh'C best solution to the problem of getting pedestrian0 ;0 ('T00-, ",is heavily trafficked area. The ultimate solution will proh;obly involve a pedestrian underpass, a traffic light or a combin"r<0n of the 2. Tom Stevens: What rea] 1" r"'" to happen from the bridge on into town is that whole cor 'je"'" .ds to be masterplanned. Roger: I would like to see them pursue having at least a section of the parking stor'1<J'C p2r':; ,.'., Jim Adamski: Thesn "re (,.IL of us act. What j'"r!'e,,,,j i't can tell you that '0 h;o~ ~I' dumping into town. Fco'" [' They get on the b110,. ',' vho are going to act just like all contennial--Tom lives there and he 'hese scares about all this traffic "I t do that. They ride their bikes. '0 Hunter Longhouse during the day. '''-' 14 PZM6.20.89 The cars are parked in the parking lot. I think what we have to do is attempt to go in there with the best and most practical management plan th0re is. I think what we have is an attempt at that. I don't think Ioc'ing poople's cars up is the answer. How can you manage th"~.? I r you have given someone a rent decrease and they need their car how do you deal with that? Jasmine: I agree with Jim. We all want this project to work really well and to have minimal impacts on the neighbors and on the town. But you c'ln' t do it through regimenting people into these situations. If you get into over-regulation, you put a tremendous burden on the, management, create a resentment on the tenants and you don't re'1Ily solve the problem. Mari: I see in h "rp ] l nd cost $250,000 and land and building $750,000. Is thi',,'l ' "'-0 Hr'!sing Authority is going to pay the land fund? What "2:; U;; loGS'] on? Jim Adamski: We are raying the land fund a million bucks. The tenants are paying th0 land fund a million bucks. Mari: What was that b,Clsed on? Jim Adamski: I don't know. They said a million bucks. We said OK. Welton: Even free l~n~ doesn't come cheap. MOTION Roger: I move to r"co><'~e'ld "nrroval with conditions for the Red Roof expansion 1'1"- "',.in 86 parking spaces and for the following: Rez":l.i, :',-, G:'; to Public for this 154, 890sqft parcel. Condition" L l'se for Clffordable housing in the Public Zone. Special u~c rcvic~ for the 86 parking space plan. Final PUD review. Conditions to be ~~t through # 3 and "c memo dated June ], c; . to read "The 2"~ 1 , building for t', Environmental He '" ':-'-'_1 rdor to issuance of the building permit #1 fro being identical as Planning Office (^ttnched in record) #4 being amended ShCl'I commit to providing a storage 'c]o fleet". And the addition of #7 '1 sj,', off on the drainage plan. , ,,~, " #1 to be amende( r~vj~rd on an annual basis". #2 being identical to P]...,. 1<) ':-: rr i C~ ~emo dated June 15, 1989. #3 identical to Plill:1.i, I ic'C m"roo dated June 15, 1989. #4 The applicant shall work with the Colorado Department of Highways to provide a safe )"!:,(lestrian crossing of State Highway 82 at the entrance of th0 ....; -et ar'l ','i.ll encourage utilization of a traffic light an' .',. t", In tunnels as the Highway Department -: 5 ( PZM6.20.89 sees fit. #5 The project shall include recycling containers as agreed to with Jim J)"ke of the recycling authority. Everyone voted in ,",nr of tl1e l"otion. Welton closed the 'ic hC2~in(';. "J'...CO..!'.""~I"T1JMS REZONING Alan: Made presen~'" 'on as attZ1ched in record. Welton opened the r'nh1ic hearing. There were no pule';" '-'()1T-'~~cnt:,~ . Welton: I woulr' amend section 9-1' the attachment (Z1 approval tot he G approximately 820 Planning Office me And that P&Z reco the property. '~r~lin a rotion to recommend that Council " /")eo Land Use Regulations as shown on '0 "e' "d) and P&Z grant Special Review ~C'1do'" ini,",s to expand its office space by ".' ! 0 the 4 conditions listed on J2,od :JUTl' 9, 1989. (Attached in record) '~! Gn L o~orlay be added to the zoning of Michael: I will r'" '" tr"t I"otion. Roger seconded th,. . ":io'l with n1I in favor. Graeme: Can W~ 1" "^(; '-;r' ";1 ing? Michael: I am' '1(1 the Gant to par~i '0 '''clude condition #5 to encourage lng. Welton asked for r :;c:""''';,t, There was none and lee closod the public hearing. Everyone voted In "'1"1:" rf t'le J"ntion. Meeting was ad" 0'1" "I T -i T'10 ~.\!a~, 1 G