Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850205 ~....-~~-~..~--_.-" _.",_.._,.<..~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meetina P1annina and Zoning commission Februarv 5. 1985 Vice Chairperson Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, David White (arrived late), Roger Hunt, and alternate Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Alan Richman, planning office, distributed the proposed work session schedule. The commissioners will be meeting every Tuesday. The schedule is ambitious. The work emphasis is planning, not case load. The staff needs the commissioners's support and time. The Aspen Mountain Lodge residential component will be scheduled with other items. Time will be dedicated to the Aspen Mountain Lodge during the work sessions. The case load on the regular agenda is busy. The staff will also attempt to schedule planning work on the regular agenda. A work session is scheduled early next week. Hunt questioned the topic of discussion six weeks after April 16th (he will be on vacation). Richman said the work program notes the timing of individual items. In the planning office, a chart diagrams the program. April and March are not as busy as February and March. The emphasis during February and ~1arch is the entrance to Aspen and open space. The staff has to re-establish some credibility for the department and the Commission given planning was discredited last fall. The staff needs to be productive during the early part of the year. The Commission's responsibility to the Aspen Mountain Lodge is ending. Glenn Horn, planning office, responded to inquiries on the "Independence Pass Corridor study." The forest service is doing an environmental analysis of management alternatives for the Independence Pass corridor. The forest service has developed issues and concerns, the list is comprehensive. The forest service will develop alternatives for management and the city will respond to those alternatives. Horn reported on the joint Commission/Council meeting last night on Burnt Mountain. The City Council noted certain impacts, impacts on guest services, parking, RFTA, and seasonal housing resulting from Burnt Mountain. They also reaffirmed certain statements Aspen's quality of life, environment, wildlife, vegetation, etc. The city reaffirmed its commitment to the growth management plan. They noted areas in the environmental a ssessment needing improvement. They di rected the planning office to prepare a resolution incorporating all this with a statement that encourages the Burnt Mountain expansion. Horn is unsure of the Council's position. Bil Dunaway, publisher of the ASDen Times, recalled only two council members spoke. It is hard 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS aeau1ar Meetin9 .P1annina and Zonin9 Commission February 5. 1985 to report the consensus for the proposal. Horn did not think there was a consensus. Bill Stirling encouraged the statement. Fallin perceived a need for more cooperation from the Town of Snowmass, for example, with transportation, guest services, and addi tional employees. Horn repeated the direction was uncl ea r. Stirling was the only one who spoke. The issue is big. The issue has not received much discussion, and yet, Council will take action Monday night. If the commissioners have strong feelings on the issue, show up at next Monday's meeting. Represent your views. Neither commissioners nor council members have had the opportunity to express views. Hunt explained his concerns with options, two and three. First, is the complete elimination of calving areas for elk and deer. Second, is the development of tourist bedrooms in East Village. A Snowmass Business Center at Owl Creek is possible and distress- ful. Third, there is no justification for any development at this time. Skier business has leveled off. The apparent planning strategy is to build more bedrooms then build more lifts. There are no support facilities for the additional bedrooms. Fourth, is the effect on the transportation system: roads. More skier beds, more ski lifts will affect the roads and highway. This is good for the tax base, not for the congestion and the perceived quality of life. White reported a discussion with John Young, manager of the Town of Snowmass. Young had mentioned that Burnt Ilountain is wi thin the limits of Snowmass. They want input, now, from the county and city. They will review the proposal later. White encouraged a joint meeting with John Young, Fred Smith, Glenn Horn to talk about this very important topic. Council did not listen to the commi ssi one r s last night. The commissioners were credited for the increased joint meetings with Council. But, if Council does not listen to the Commission, what is the purpose of the joint meetings. Horn emphasized the deadline for comments is next week. City Council has to act Monday night. Not everyone has had the chance to discuss the subject. He urged the commissioners to read the analysis prepared by Mark Fuller and Glenn Horn. He will answer any questions. Burnt /10untain is a big issue. He encouraged commissioners to participate in the Council meeting. Fallin questioned where and when the ski company will put the first lift. Horn replied the ski company's statement is to build two lifts when the demand warrants the increase. After they complete the development plans for Baldy, the ski company will pursue Burnt Mountain if there is a demand. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Februarv 5. 1985 Anderson concurred with Hunt. He understood Stirling did not consider the elk herd or transportation a problem. Anderson was frustrated with the meeting. MINUTES Motion: Pat Fallin moved to table the minutes to the next regular scheduled for February 19, 1985; seconded by Roger Hunt. favor; motion carried. meeting All in PUBLIC BEARING. continuedhearinv ~-TIME SATELLITE DISH CONDITIONAL USE Richman requested another tabling. The applicant is exploring a better location. He advised tabling to the next meeting. Anderson opened the public hearing. He solicited public comment. Ann Chapman, owner of the property across the street, did not want to look at the dish. Approval opens the door for more dishes. She does not want three or four on the block. The block is small scale. The dish's appearance is negative. Leslie Troyer, owner of the property on the corner, essentially supported these comments. She is not only concerned with the looks but with location. She did not favor the location. Dave Johnson, general manager of KSNO, commented the proposed location is not proper. Consider the business center. KSNO has nothing to do with this application. Colette Penne, planning office, read into the record a letter from Adam Walton, resident at 635 East Hopkins: "Out of town business prevents me from appearing in person, nevertheless, I desire that my thoughts on the above caption proposal be of record. While I do encourage individual entrepeneurs, as I believe there is already too much govern- mental interference in out lives, I feel very strongly that this proposal to allow such a large, ten foot, obtr us i ve piece of electronic gear is just not in keeping with the nature of our community, especially, if it is to be in full public view either at ground level or on top of a building. I am confident that tourists who visit and residents who have chosen Aspen as their home do not wish to be subjected to ugly, visually, obtrusive objects such as satellite dishes even if it is mounted on a trailer. Surely, in your wisdom, you will 3 ~",~-",,"--"~~'^--_.' .....-----, --',,--..,-,'~'~_'- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS aeau1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 5. 1~ reject this applicant's request in its present form, but perhaps will assist by offering guidance in the development of a hidden remote location where suitable for this type of electronic gear." Motion: Roger Hunt moved to table this application until February 19, 1985; seconded by Ramona Markalunas. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING CHART HOUSE GMP EXEMPTION/CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Penne briefed the commissioners. The Chart House is located at 219 Durant Avenue in the L-l zone. The applicant requests an addition of approximately 500 square feet. The tool is an exemption from growth management. A restaurant is a conditional use in the L-l zone and this request expands the conditional use permit. If the Commission finds the impacts of 500 square feet minimal or manageable, grant an exemption from growth management for the additional space. Make findings based on the following criteria: a minimal number of additional employees are generated by the expansion or housing is being provided for additional employees; a minimal amount of additional parking demand is created or that parking can be accommodated on site; minimal visual impact on the neighborhood; and minimal new demand is placed on services on site, such as, water, sewer, roads, drainage, and fire protection. Additional criteria for evaluating the placement of conditional uses or expansion are: whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; whether the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning district; and, the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area. The proposed additions meet all area and bulk requirements. The restaurant's location is compatible with surrounding land uses. The location is convenient for lodge guests within the lodge area. The location is within one and one-half blocks from the Rubey Park Transit Center. The location is on several bus routes. The location is easily accessible by car. Most off street parking on Monarch and Durant is utilized by Chart House patrons. There is a parking lot behind the restaurant used by skiers during the day and diners during the night. 4 .. --,-~-"-~--------",,,~-,--,-'-'-----~>'~'-'~-'-""'-"""'---<----- RECORQ_OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meetina P1annina and Zoning Commission February 5. 1985 The restaurant's current footprint is 5,716 square feet. The lot is over 11,000 square feet. The FAR is .52: l. The allowed external FAR is 1: l. 50% of the space will remain open space; the requirement is 25%. The requirement for height and distance between buildings is met. The placement of the addition at the rear of building, facing Dean Street and the southwest corner, is sensitive and will have minimal visual impact on the neighborhood. The square footage is for a lounge area, 126 square feet; for a storage area, 87 square feet; for an office space, 116 square feet; and for a bar, an increase of 169 square feet. The applicant is building larger rest rooms. The circulation between the bar and dining room will be upgraded. Existing office and storage space is lost with the bathroom expansion; that office space is replaced with the addition. The applicant believes the current bar and waiting area are inadequate for the dining capacity of the restaurant. The applicant proposes to improve those areas, not to change dining capacity. The engineering department does not anticipate increase in the infrastructure usage: water, trash generation, roads, etc. Additional parking requirements may not be generated by this addi tion. But, the code (Section 24-4.5) requires four parking spaces for every additional 1,000 square feet of commercial area. The requirement is two off-street parking spaces. She received a letter from Tom Wells, architect for the project. The letter explains the location of the two parking spaces, as submitted in alternative one. Major restructuring of the site involves movement of a retaining wall and loss of two on-street parking spaces. The trade-off from two on-street spaces to two off-street spaces is not that desirable. The Commission and the planning off ice cannot vary the code's requi rements for parking space. Only the Board of Adjustment can grant a variance from this parking provision. The planning office recommends approval of special review for the GMP exemption for expansion of the Chart House by no more than 500 square feet and for expansion of the existing conditional use permit with a condition that the two parking spaces shown on alternative one be instituted. The Commission can table its action until the applicant receives a variance from the Board of Adjustment. This action does not put the Board of Adjustment in a compromising position. Tom Wells, architect for the project, noted a problem with penne's recommendation on parking. The construction period is short, April 15th and June 15th. Approve construction tonight. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meetina P~annina and Zoning cnmmission February 5. 1985 Penne asked if the applicant will either locate the parking, as suggested in alternative one, or apply for a variance. Wells preferred a vote on the 500 square feet tonight. There is no rush on parking. Separate the parking from the construction. penne argued the two issues are inseparable. Wells replied the vote tonight should include the parking spaces. The applicant can always approach the Board of Adjustment to overturn the Commission I s condition of approval. Penne said if the Board of Adjustment does not waive the parking spaces, the applicant has to install the two parking spaces. Wells understood. Hunt requested engineering's review. Dean Street is critical to Aspen Mountain Lodge's construction. The proposed parking solution may be acceptable under the code but not for the street. Elyse Elliott, engineering department, commented she did not review the solution under a new lodge scenario. She only considered the existing conditions. Hunt requested the entire parking along Dean Street be solved. Consider the lodge. There is a need for a service vehicle egress out of this area. Richman replied the city solved this issue with the lodge. It is unreason- able to hold up this applicant for the lodge. Hunt suggested no on-street parking on Dean. Dean Street is cd tical to the lodge. Why present a solution diametrically opposed to the lodge's needs? Penne agreed off-street parking may be more reasonable. Hunt said the trade-off from on-street to off-street parking is questionable. He requested engineering's analysis. Dean Street is the solution to the egress for the lodge. penne noted that the city is tied to a code that requires four parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of commercial space added in this zone. The requirement for 500 additional square feet is two parking spaces. Perhaps a case can be made in front of the Board of Adj ustment to waive that requirement. The appropriate body, the Board of Adjustment, waives the requirement. Hunt asked if the parking area used by skiers during the day can be used by patrons of the Chart House during the evening. To require two additional spaces is inappropriate. Penne recommended send this message to the Board of Adjustment. But, the Commission cannot vary the parking requirement. Hunt agreed to approve the request with the parking condition and a resolution for the Board of Adjustment expressing the Commission's position on parking. Engineering should also submit its position. The proposed parking solution is poor, especially, given the excess parking adjacent to the property during the restaurant's hours of opera- tion. White concurred with Hunt. Anticipate the lodge. And, study the area before requiring the Chart House to provide two parking spaces. Parking is adjacent to the restaurant. Do not compound 6 .. '____.~________', '" __ '___._~_.~_.._.~m_~__~~__~''''_~---''_'''_'''''''___'__"'_'_'' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar M@etina Planning and Zoning cnmmission Februarv 5. 1985 Dean Street. Wells explained there are immediate internal problems, inadequate toilet rooms, the three levels, etc. The applicant wants to re- organize the internal space. Mechanically and electrically the situation is a mess. He argued the site is underutilized, especially, wi th the proj ected growth intensity of use of the area. The Chart House may rebuild in ten years. The 500 square feet is a remedial step before remodeling. He cited the Hotel Jerome approvals. Gilmore obligated himself to sixty stalls in the some-day parking garage. Consider a letter of agreement stating if and when the city wants the two stalls, the Chart House shall provide the stalls. The design and the impact on Dean Street are separate from the Chart House. Anderson opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. He closed the public hearing. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to approve special rev iew for the purpose of a GMP exemption for the expansion of the Chart House Restaurant by not more than 500 square feet and for an expansion of the existing conditional use permit with the fOllowing conditions: 1. Two parking spaces shown on alternative #1 be instituted for technical purposes of this approval. 2. The applicant must further apply to the Board of Adjustment for the removal of that requirement. This variance is recommended by the Commission. The purpose is to improve Dean Street use given future building in the area. Engineering and the Commission are co- applicants with the Chart House for this request. Excess parking is available in the immediate area. Seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC, HEARING MUHICTPAL rnnEaMRNnMRN~~..STREAMLIHING OR REVIEW PROCESS Richman said Council initiated a code amendment during its SPA review. Two issues were raised during the SPA public hearings. First, what comes first, the ability to build or the proper zoning to build. During the Little Nell application, in 1983, the planning office argued the applicant should be properly zoned and the entire Little Nell parcel should be zoned SPA before the submission of a land use application for any of its parcels. 7 ,--.------ ,.--,-,._-~,--- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meetin9 Pl~nnin9 ..nd ,Zonina Commission P.mrnarv 5.,19,85 Consider the broader question. Should an applicant be zoned to the use in question before submitting a growth management appli- cation or should an applicant submit everything at once? Allowing applicants to rezone to the use in question fragments the planning process and results in incremental reviews. That is undesirable. Such action promotes people to request zoning on a speculative basis. The practice in the community is not to upzone land in the absence of an application for a specific approval. The problem: on one hand the city will not approve a zoning without a land use application; and on the other hand, the city will not accept a land use application without a zoning. Richman cited the Nugget Lodge's growth management application from last year. The Nugget went through the L-3 competition and special review for the increase in the FAR. That is a streamlined process more than the conceptual process and subsequent reviews. The former process encouraged continuity. The language encourages a one-step process and suggests people approach growth management review concurrently with a zoning application and with a conceptual subdivision application. Growth management meetings may be more lengthy, but, the result is the elimination of subsequent reviews. The language states reviews shall be submitted at one time and that the Commission initiate the reviews at one time. No one will receive final approval until the receipt of a development allotment. If an appl icant is unsuccessful in a competition, he does not receive subdivision approval. If the applicant does not receive conceptual approval, his allotment is void. If one aspect of a project fails, the other parts fail. Growth management is concerned with the impacts on services. Subdivision PUD and SPA are concerned with compatibility with surrounding development. To work, a project needs both approvals. An allotment exists. But without a subdivision approval, the allotment is useless and the ability to build does not exist. Spence Shiffer had raised the second issue at a Council meeting. The lodge quota for L-l, L-2, CC, CL and L-3 zones does not address properties with an SPA overlay. The staff suggested an amendment to the code that addresses this. The language does not pre-judge the Meadow's property. Tygre asked if CC and CL will be incorporated under one quota. Richman explained there is one competition for the L-l, L-2, CC, and CL zone districts. The Commission has only received appli- cations in the L-l or L-2 zone district. There could be future applications in the CC or CL zone district. The code was estab- lished, with the exception of the underlined, in 1981, to read: 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meetina P1anning and Zonin9 Cnmmission Pebrua~yS~ 1985 "Within the L-l, L-2, CC, CL, and all other zone districts. thirty-five (35) lodge or hotel units." The addition covers the SPA property; the addition covers zone districts not specifically zoned lodge. Tygre did not support an amendment designed to anticipate a possible application by the Aspen I.leadows. The underlying zone district at the ~Ieadows does not include lodge uses. Richman explained the ~leadows does not have a zone designation. The Meadows has only an SPA. The Meadows has to wait for class action zoning in the later part of the year. Procedurally, the Meadows is not eligible for growth management now. That is inappropriate. The revision addresses this situation. Hunt requested clarification of "zoning" in line one of the first paragraph. Also, the applicant has one time of the year to applicant to apply without the Commission sponsoring the zoning. Richman remarked the county allows zoning applications in in conjunction with growth management applications. The municipal code does not provide for that now. Twelve and twenty-four zoning sections will have to be amended also. Those sections currently provide February 15th and August 15th as the only dates for submission. Add the phrase "except if submitted in conjunction with a growth management application." Anderson opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman favored the amendments. The amendments are fair. He requested additional language: "Applicants for projects requiring subdivision, PUD, ~... Zoning, Special Review or other approval from the Ci ty of Aspen shall submit..." Joe Wells favored the proposal. The last language may be appro- priate for other areas. He does not know what will be brought forward for the Meadows. He does not know what the community wants. The additional language gives the city the flexibility to make a decision whether or not to subject the Meadows to growth management. At least, the Meadows should be eligible to compete for a quota. Consider applying this to the commercial quota. Other sections of the GMP requirements specify which zone districts are eligible to compete for that quota. Richman noted the commercial section always included this language. Wells requested the following addition: 9 RECORD OF. PROCEEDINGS ReaularMeetinq Pl~nnin9 and Zonina cnmmission F~bruary 5.1985 n.. .application for a development allotment. if reauired." Allow for continued, open discussion on whether growth management will or will not be applied in all cases. The addition is consistent with the subsequent sentence. Richman argued the phrase is not redundant in the paragraph, but, redundant in growth management. Growth management identifies when to compete. Growth management states the exempted activities. Those activities not already limited by Section 24-11.1 are exempt. Anderson closed the public hearing. Hunt commented on the second item. The phrase "all other zone districts" is too open ended. Richman explained if a use is prohibited in the zone district, one cannot apply for growth management allocation unless one applies for rezoning. This action does not open zone districts to lodge units where not allowed. SPA allows variance on uses. SPA is not a zone. The problem lies with a property that only has an SPA designation. If the property were zoned SPA/R-6 residential uses would be allowed and lodges would be prohibited. Hunt cited an hypothetical SPA area where lodges do not exist. Richman replied the codes cites SPA as on overlay that requires an underlying zone. The city will not likely experience another property similar to the ~leadows. Hunt asked if there will be a problem with the Rio Grande property. Richman answered no. An underlying zone exists. Anderson cited a massive PUD subdivision, similar to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. How is the application handled? Richman said the Commission did not take final action on the GMP allocation until it finished with conceptual. Council did not grant an GMP allocation until it finished with conceptual. This is a good c":'1cnple how to properly work the process. The boards saw the entire project upfront. There were numerous meetings but the boar i did not review the project piecemeal. The county favors reviewin( general submission before growth management. General submission is broader than growth management. The county knows everything about the project by scoring time. The Commission and the staff will determine what order to process the reviews. Not all developments will require subdivision review. A commercial project is not a subdivision. The standard lodge is not a subdivision. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the code amendments addressed in the 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReaularMeetina Plannin~ ~nn Zanin9 Commission Februarv 5.1985 planning office's memo dated February 5, 1985, as revised in the meeting; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. OLD. BUSINESS NEALESTRRRT BRIDGE STREAM MARr.IN REVIEW penne reminded the Commission gave Neale Street Bridge approval on June 19th. Since then, the recent floodplain mapping project showed the inaccuracies in the earlier application. The current bridge does not clear the one hundred year flood by 1.8 feet, the bridge is actually 1.7 feet under water. The city applied and received state funding for construction of a new bridge. The proposed bridge will be two feet above the one hundred year flood line, the recommended clearance for the debris flow during the one hundred year flood. In the earlier review, the city engineer had informed the Commission that the existing abutments would remain. With the new construc- tion, the abutments have to be removed and replaced. All commit- ments made in the earlier review will remain unchanged. A pedestrian walkway will be located on the bridge, an extension of the Rio Grande Trail. Removal of vegetation is not significant. Grade changes that could produce erosion of the stream bank will not be made. New abutments may cause disturbance to the river during construction. The estimated time of construction is three weeks. The short construction time and some increase sedimentation are reasonable trade-offs for a new bridge that can be used by fire trucks and pedestrians. The channel and its capacity will be altered. One criterion of stream margin review is not to alter the channel and its capacity. The alterations are positive; the bridge will be built above the floodplain. A hydraulic engineer did determine that erosion at the next downstream bend will not be increased. The environmental health department independently reviewed and concluded the statements are true. The planning office recommends approval of stream margin review for this amendment to the reconstruction of the Neale Street Bridge. Engineering will monitor the construction and will keep disturbance to the stream channel to a minimum. Hunt asked if raising the bridge reduces the incline of the hill approaching the bridge. How will this affect the park? How will the area be planed? will the bridge be raised with respect to the park? The Main Street side of the Neale Street is not a problem. How far will the area be filled to meet the existing park? Chuck Roth, engineering department, replied qualitatively not far, quantitatively 25 or 50 feet. The road cannot intrude 11 RECORD OF pRnrRRnINGS Reau.lar Meetina P1anninll ann ,Z.oninq ~nmmission P~br'larv, S. 1985 river. Sedimentation and suspension loads will be increased for a short period of time. This action will alleviate flooding problems. Removal of the concrete will enhance the stream's natural value. Many people are disturbed by the concrete deposited by old batch plant. planning office recommends the approval of channel and stream bank clearing proposed in this application. The location is 800 feet upstream from the Aspen Art Museum. Fallin asked where will this material be dumped. Roth replied the the question will be answered by the Oklahoma Flats I residents. Hunt suggested the material be removed and deposited at an appropriate dumpsite. Make sure the material is dumped more than one hundred feet from the river. Penne agreed the point is good. She assumed the material would be hauled to the dump. Fallin remarked do not assume anything. l'IOt:ion: Roger Hunt moved to approve stream margin review for the channel and stream bank clearing proposed in this application provided that the removed concrete will be deposited at an appropriate dumpsite; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. White requested a statement of no deposit within one hundred feet of the river. Hunt amended his motion to read: "to approve stream margin review for the channel and stream bank clearing proposed in this application provided that the removed concrete will be deposited at an appropriate dumpsite that is, not wi thin one __ hllndr~d feet of, thp Ii~~r and not an the Ria Grande oraDer~V.n Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. Markalunas emphasized the expense is not to be absorbed by the city but by the residents of Oklahoma Flats. Roth noted the only city expense is Roth's supervision and time. The motion applies only to the concrete. The owners can locate the boulders within one hundred feet. All in favor; motion carried. Motion! Jasmine Tygre moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m.; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meet.ina.. Planning and Zonina Commi,ssi nn ~ R~bruarv 5... 1985 on the park, the one hundred flood flows through the park. The placement of a road in the park area would dam up the river and affect neighbors upstream. Fill will be added about 25 or 30 feet from the existing edge of the bridge into the park. Hunt asked how high will the bridge be above the existing grade. What happens with the parking along Herron Park? Roth answered one or two spaces may be lost. The city is trying to save parking. Markalunas asked how wide is the constructed bridge. Roth replied the vehicular travel lanes are two twelve-foot travel lanes, twenty-four feet wide. The pedestrian lane, located only on the upstream side, is seven feet wide. Economics dictated the the pedestrian lane. Also, the seven foot wide lane allows the parks department to clear snow with its equipment. ~Iarkalunas remarked it behooves the city to maintain the pedestrian walkways. Roth referred to a letter of application dated December 14, 1984. Some of the items have changed. The city will re-use the existing abutments. The city will add width to the abutments. The existing abutments only accommodate a twenty foot bridge. The total width of the new bridge is thirty-two to thirty-six feet. The channel at this time will not be changed because of the re-use of the existing abutments. The same opening will exist. The water will be affected in the stream at the fifty or one hundred year flood level. The bridge will not block or force water into the park. Under those flood conditions more water will flow under the bridge. This will not affect people downstream. Mot.ion: Roger Hunt moved to approve stream margin review for the amendment to the reconstruction of the Neale Street Bridge with the under- standing that the engineering department will monitor the con- struction and make all efforts to keep disturbances to the stream channel at a minimum; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. OLD BUSTNRS~ ~PEN ART MUSEUM. Penne reported owners in Oklahoma Flats have requested channel improvements in their location and at their own expense as part of the Art Museum flood cont rol prog r am. The reque st is the removal of five ton boulders and a concrete bank ten to fifteen wide by thirty to forty feet long. This will require blasting and one and one-half days of work. Equipment will be in the 12 RECORD OF PRnrRRnINGS Reaular Meetina p1anninQ ann ZoninaCnmmiARinn February 5. 1985 Ba~~~~~"to<<f~1 Deputy Ci ty' Cle;k--'~" 14