Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740521 fORMIC C.F,HOECKELD.D.&L.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting May 21, 1974 Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer at 5:15 p.m. with Commission members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur, Janet Landry, Charles Collins and Robert Barnard. Also present City~ounty Plan- ner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planner John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. MINUTES 4/16/74 OLD BUSINESS Meeting Schedule Trails Application Joint Resolution for P & Z and Council's Com- mendation of BruG:e Gillis Bergman Building - PUD Requirement Landry made a motion to approve the minutes of April 16, 1974, seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Bartel submitted proposed meeting schedule for next two months. Reminded the Commission that the public hearing on parking would be held on Thursday, May 23rd, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Bartel stated that the City had received its letter from the Division of Parks and Recreation saying that the trails application for $25,000 was not approved, which means definitely that the City will not have funds for construction of the trail along the highway. Stated that there was $25,000 budgeted and with the State's $25,000 had wanted to do two projects - the Hopkins Street Bridge and the trail through the open space. Bartel submitted proposed Resolution for the Commission and the City Council's Commendation of former Commission Chairman Bruce Gillis as follows: "WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been apprised by the City Council action commending Bruce Gillis for his efforts as member and later Chair- man of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to join such com- mendation and do so as a matter of record, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLAN- NING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 1. Does hereby adopt the resolution of the com- mendation hereinabove recited adopted by the Aspen City Council on , 1974; 2. That the Commission further makes a record its appreciation and gratitude to Bruce Gillis for his efforts on behalf of the City of Aspen. Barnard made a motion to approve the signing of this reso- lution, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Bartel pointed out that the Bergman Building had been reviewed under Ordinance #19 and reviewed under the view control corridor for Main Street at the Hotel Jerome. Bartel stated that technically, the regulations require that any land under the view corridor comply with PUD provisions, but the Planning and Zoning Commission can waive that requirement. Stated that in case, felt it was appropriate to consider waiving those requirements because the Commission did, through the Ordinance #19 and Main Street View Corridor, consider the bulk, the building height, the relationship to open space, etc... Stated that the application will go to the Board of Adjustment regardless, on some other matters, and this would help in keeping the application moving, if the Com- mission felt the intent of the PUD had been met by their review. Johnson made a motion to waive the PUD requirements for -" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllM!1 C.f.HOECKELD.D.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 the Bergman Building, seconded by Jenkins. Bartel gave a brief background of the review for the benefit of new member Barnard. Barnard questioned why the view corridor went South in- stead of, for instance, to Shadow Mountain. Bartel stated that a view of Shadow Mountain was not a- vailable from that point. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Brinkman Remodel Johnson stated that Larry Groen of the HPC had brought to his attention a discrepancy in the plans on the Brinkman Remodel and request the Groen present this to the Com- mission. Groen stated that the HPC had been concerned with trying to preserve some of Aspen's landmark and older buildings, particularly in the core area which they hope to have designated historic. Groen stated that the Aspen Supply Building is one that did not come before the HPC for any kind of review or approval. Stated that a permit was issued for what was ostensibly interior remodel. Groen stated that the HPC had asked Ms. Brinkman to bring to the HPC her plans and her intentions for the building. Stated that at no time had she ever brought anything to the HPC in writing. Groen stated that he had requested that she submit her plans and colors. Brinkman stated that she had no plans available. Groen stated that he finally got the plans from the City Building Inspector Further stated that there is an addition to the outside of the building on the west side which will be part of a restaurant. Groen stated that in the original plans, a skylight was indicated as following the existing roof line of the buil- ding. In the revised plans which were okayed on the 5th of May, shows a 7~' high greenhouse structure to replace the skylight. Stated that this does not follow the his- toric lines of the building. Groen stated that the HPC was concerned because had been requesting Ms. Brinkman to show them her plans. Ques- tioned if something was not being presented that should be. Stated they are further concerned because they feel that the HPC is being rather successfully bypassed. Ques- tioned if the Commission had seen the revised plans be- fore it was approved by the Building Inspector. Johnson stated that he had never seen the revised plans. Schiffer stated that he, too, had never seen the revised plans. Vagneur stated that she felt the Building Inspector was confused since the Commission had approved the green- house in the back. Schiffer questioned what the procedure was for getting the plans that the Commission approves to the Building -2- fORM5lI C.F.HOECKELD.D.!ll.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Main Motion JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Historic Desig- nation - City Hall, Lift #1, Community Church Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 Inspector. Bartel stated that the plans actually originate in the Building Inspector's Office. Bartel stated that in this case, for some reason there is a new set of plans. Groen stated that his prime concern was the fact that the HPC was being bypassed. Schiffer stated the reason that this project had never gone to the HPC is due to the fact that it was to be an interior remodel. Stated that the building inspector could rescind his approval. Johnson made a motion, stating that the Planning & Zoning Commission had not seen the revised set of plans altering the skylight and greenhouse under Ordinance #19 and fur- ther, directing the Building Inspector to issue a stop work order until such time as these plans can be reviewed again under Ordinance #19 and/or through the HPC. Motion seconded by Jenkins. Bartel pointed out that the stop work order may only need to apply to the part that is new, which the Commission did not approve. All in favor, motion carried. Vagneur stated that she felt Brinkman had done a great job thus far. vice Chairman Schiffer opened the joint public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Pre- servation Committee on the historic designation of City Hall, Lift #1 and the Community Church. Members of the Historic Preservation Committee present in- cluded: Judy Ferrenberg, Larry Groen, Florence Glidden, Stanford submitted map showing location of the three struc- tures. Stanford stated that the planning considerations on City Hall, the factors which are important in support of its being designated historic are: (1) That it contributes to the significance of Galena Street as a proposed pedestrian access between the river and Rubey Park; (2) It is compatible with the plans which they have for the setting of City Hall whereby there will be a park to the rear and a potential park a- cross Galena Street with the acquisition of the small structure on the one lot there. (3) It is in a block which presently contains all historic structures and it is within the pro- posed historic district. Stanford stated that the planning considerations for Lift #1, which is outside the historic district, are as follows: (1) It is on land which is presently proposed as a public park and owned by the City. Is an ap- propriate location for the display. -3- . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM!C C.F.HOECKELD.D.!lL.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 (2) With the high tourist concentration in this area, the Lift's preservation adds to the variety of appreciation of Aspen's historic features. Is one of the unique features in the historic in- ventory. Sets an example by the City for the historic preservation as an element of the comprehensive plan. (3) Stanford historic lows: (1) stated that the planning considerations for the designation of the Community Church were as fol- (2) Is in a location where, from a land use stand- point, where a church and historic structure is appropriate. Also sets a precedent for maintaining the his- toric qualities of the neighborhood and the Church also has great potential as being recog- nized by the National Trust. Ferrenberg pointed out that the Community Church has re- quested historic designation. Dunaway questioned if the City of Aspen has requested his- toric designation for City Hall. Stanford stated that it had. Stanford stated that the documentation for historic desig- nation was primarily based on research which had been done by a committee partially funded through the planning funds of the Planning Office and the Historical Society. Stated that they had gone through past publications of the Aspen Times and received their documentation through these old newspapers. Submitted article from 1946 on the dedication of Lift #1 which explains why the lift was constructed and what festivities were held upon its completion. Vagneur questioned why three towers were chosen instead of just one. Stanford stated that there were three towers which were presently left there. Stated that the City has not gotten permission from Awrey for the designation of the fourth tower as historic. Stated that they have been unable to contact Awrey. Ferrenberg stated that City Hall was one of the first buildings when Aspen was beginning its building boom and was one of the first buildings that was built of brick. Was built in 1892 and was used as an Armory Hall. Stated that it was a very large center in the community for social activities. Stanford submitted three exerpts from newspaper articles illustrating the importance of City Hall historically. Ferrenberg stated that she felt the historical significance of Lift #1 is to look at what the town is today and what skiing has done for it. Stated that this was the first lift in the United States. Schiffer pointed out that at one time it was the longest ski lift in the world. Ferrenberg stated that the fact that the Community Church -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllM!C C.F.HOECKELD.8.&l.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 was built as a Church and still remains a Church is one of the reasons for historic designation. Further, the architecture is unusual for the time period in which it was built. Stanford submitted newspapaper exerpts on the Community Church. Building was dedicated March 3, 1891. Hans Gramiger stated that he felt it was commendable what the Historical Society of Aspen had done and the Aspen Historical Preservation Committee. Stated that we seem to go from one extreme to the other. Gramiger stated that on Lift #1, he has a selfish reason for saying that while he has no quarrels with the desig- nation of the site that was deeded by the Aspen Ski Cor- poration to the City for a park, stated that he did have a quarrel with saying that everything that has been re- maining of the gift premises by a trade of easements should be left there. Stated that there was a plaque on the first tower. Felt that to designate the three steel structures was unnecessary. Gramiger stated that he had acquired from the Ski Corpo- ration the entire lift, minus what he did not want. Stated this was the top terminal of the old Midway site. Stated that he has the bullwheel and would like the bull- wheel which is in the structure proposed to be designated historic. Gramiger stated that the terminal structure takes up a great deal of space which is taken away from the purpose for which it was designated - as a park. Felt that keeping this structure was not commensurate with cleaning up the community. Gramiger submitted photographs of the lift. Groen stated that he felt if they were to designate the site as historic, could designate the site of any his- toric structure. Ramona Markalunas was present representing the Aspen His- torical Society. Stated the #1 Lift would not still be standing there today if it had not been for the efforts of the Aspen Historical Society. Stated that they prefer to see it standing there as it is today. Felt that the lift represented a turning point for this community. Stanford pointed out that in the publication in the paper concerning City Hall, it was listed as Lots K,L,M,N and 0, and City Hall actually occurs only lots K, L, and M. Stated that the Planning Office is recommending designation of only those lots and of the City Hall structure itself. vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing. Johnson made a motion to recommend to the City Council the historic designation of City Hall for the reasons stated by the Planning Office and the HPC. Motion seconded by Vagneur. Barnard pointed out that the building was condemned. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. -5- fORMIC C.F.HOECKElB.B.&l.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting May 21, 1974 Main Motion WOERNDLE PUD - OUTLINE DEVELOP- MENT PLAN Aspen Planning & Zoning Barnard made a motion to recommend to City Council the historic designation of the Community Church for the reasons stated by the Planning Office and the HPC. Motion seconded by Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion to recommend to City Council the historic designation of old Lift #1 for the reasons stated by the Planning Office and the HPC, seconded by Landry. Barnard stated that he did not see the value in leaving the ironwork sticking up in the sky. Felt that it was an eyesore. Vagneur stated that she wondered about the value of leaving four towers remaining. Stated that she was very much in favor of leaving the first one. Johnson stated that he did not feel the site itself was particularly historic but felt that the structure is. Schiffer stated that he favored the historic designation for two reasons: (1) condition of the agreement with the Ski Corporation was that the towers remain intact, and (2) if you eliminate the towers, then you no longer have the lift line there with the chairs hanging from it. Members in favor: Collins. Members carried. Landry, Johnson, Jenkins, Schiffer, and opposed: Barnard and Vagneur. Motion Bartel stated that this application is located on HWY 82 at the entrance to the Aspen Grove Subdivision and the Alpine Lodge. Submitted sketch map showing the location of the project containing 7 single family lots. Stated the property is not now in the City but a petition has been submitted for annexation and considered and passed on first reading by the City Council and will come up on 2nd reading at a Council meeting in June. Bartel stated that there are two entrances to the project: (1) off the road going into the Aspen Grove Subdivision fairly close to the highway intersection; and (2) the existing public street which serves the Alpine Lodge and provides access for three building sites. Bartel stated that the PUD plan is divided by Salvation Ditch - four single family lots on the upper side of the ditch, three single family lots on the lower side. Landry stated that she was abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Bartel stated that the County zoning is R-15, mandatory PUD. Stated that the County zoning does not allow du- plexes. Stated that the density is consistent with the County zoning. Bartel pointed out that a PUD is not a subdivision and if the Outline Development Plan is approved, what the Commission would really be approving is the design and the layout. Give separate consideration to easements, the 4% dedication, drainage, etc... Bartel stated that one concern of the planning Office is that because there is so much pressure on common areas that these be used only for open space and play lots for -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM!C C.F.HOECKELD.8.&l.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 the benefit of the whole subdivision so that they do not turn into swimming pools, recreation buildings, etc... Bartel stated that a landscaping plan is a requirement of the PUD regulations and the Planning Office has two con- cerns: (1) That the areas be designated which will not be disturbed; and (2) That the applicant provide screening and additional planting along Highway 82, particQlarly along Salvation Ditch to screen the subdivision from the highway. Bartel pointed out that the roads do not meet right-of- way specifications for public dedication so at the sub- division stage should remain private. A homeowners as- socation would need to be formed for the maintenance of roads to the open space. Bartel stated that comments from the water department expressing their concern about the water plant investment fees in the case of annexation. Fell that is a policy matter for the Council to resolve with the Water Department and the landowner. Bartel stated that there was a letter in the file from an adjoining property owner which states that they feel there are too many buildings on such a small area, es- pecially since both the City and the County are trying to have less construction per area of land and that they have no objection to wanting to annex but are concerned about the number of dwelling units - Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Mason. Vagneur questioned if anything had been done by the de- veloper to contact the Salvation Ditch Company to deter- mine whether or not any of those building sites are in danger. Applicant stated that he had contacted the Salvation Ditch Company last June. Commission has looked at this before. that time there was a water problem - plied. Have been assured by the City could be done now. the Chairman of Stated that the Stated that at could not be sup- Engineer that it Attorney John Wendt was present as counsel for the Sal- vation Ditch Company. Stated that the Salvation Ditch Company is opposed to planting of trees and shrubbery in the ditch easement. Bartel stated that there was approximately 35,000 square feet of common area. Mr. Ferguson, adjacent property owner, was present and stated that the parkway was a dedicated street - used to be the old street to the cemetery. Stated that he ob- jected to that being closed as a public thoroughfare be- cause he is on one side of it - would not necessarily ob- ject to possibly joining in to some arrangement to keep it plowed if that is the purpose of making it a private street. Stated that he is also opposed to closing the street on the old Willicks map unless the pedestrian right- of-way is moved over on the common area. Applicant stated that it is the Planning Office's desire that the street become private so that the City is not responsible for plowing it - would enter into an agree- ment with Ferguson that he will be granted access. -7- fORJI!41 C.F.HOECKElB.B.!ll.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 Regular Meeting Shadow View Subdivision - Preliminary Plat & Ordinance #19 Ferguson stated that he would be willing to work with something along that line, but would like to be assured that he would have access from the City as he has now. Collins questioned the possibility of extending the com- mon area to the far side of Salvation Ditch. Stated that it was not clear to him which side of the ditch the pro- perty line was on. Stated he was referring to common areas 3 and 4. Applicant stated that they wished to develope the upper four sites first. Stated that the project would be phased over the next four years. Vagneur made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Outline Development Plan, seconded by Jenkins. All in,favor, with the exception of Landry who abstained. Motion carried. Vice Chairman Schiffer continued the public hearing on the preliminary plat for Shadow View Subdivision. Paul Hamwi, representing the applicant, reviewed consider- ations of the Planning Office from previous meeting. Plat corrections were made as indicated by the Planning Office. Hamwi stated that they had a contract for snow removal with V & S Excavating Company. Schiffer stated that it appeared the plat was now suffi- cient. Hamwi stated that the applicant would give a 4% cash dedi- cation rather than land dedication. Further stated that letters of referral were in in August of 1973. Stanford stated that the proposal does comply with all the design requirements. Hamwi stated that the lots would all be entirely electric. Commission questioned if they should get an update on the referral letters. Hamwi stated that the referral letters were for eleven units and they presently were proposing four. Stated that the referrals are still good. vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing. Collins questioned what the height would be on the east retaining wall. Hamwi stated that it was 7'. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned whether or not the appli- cant would be willing to put in a sidewalk. Hamwi stated that since there were no sidewalks on either side, felt it would not be necessary - would agree to join a future sidewalk improvement district. Bartel stated that he felt on any new construction, they were required to put in a sidewalk. -8- FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.&l.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting May 21, 1974 Shadow View Subdivision - Ordinance #19 Preliminary & Final ORDINANCE #19 Hicks Exemption Durant-Galena Building - Final Review Aspen Planning & Zoning Hamwi stated that they would install their sidewalk to the City's elevations if the City does decide to put a sidewalk in. Johnson made a motion to give approval to the preliminary plat of Shadow View Subdivision conditioned on the appli- cant entering into subdivision review at a later time covering the land dedication and improvement districts and whatever other considerations the Planning Department has. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Hamwi stated that they had now provided 8 parking spaces and would agree to covenant for long-term rentals. Stated that the units would be sold and in the deed covenant will provide for long-term rental. Stated it will be for 6- month rental. Hamwi submitted final site plan, schematic design drawings, elevations, and floor plans. Jim Breur stated that the units were 546 square feet each. Jenkins questioned the possibility of renting rooms out in the individual units due to the outside entrance to the upstairs. Felt that if there is going to be this number of bedrooms on 9,000 square feet, felt this was too great. Bob Gruetter, Attorney, stated that the Commission had requested that the applicant come back with four units. Johnson made a motion to give preliminary and final ap- proval under Ordinance #19 for the Shadow View Subdivi- sion, seconded by Vagnuer. All in favor with the excep- tion of Jenkins and Collins who were opposed. Motion carried. Ed Hicks was present as applicant. Bartel stated that the Planning Office was recommending this exemption. Stated that the proposal is to move an existing use over 1 lot. Stated the use would be moved as a result of the new building proposed at Durant and Galena. Hicks stated that the and ski repair shop. building over one lot building is presently a Stated that they wished to the east. gift shop to move the Johnson made a motion to grant the exemption under Ordi- nance #19, seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer stated that the conditions for preliminary ap- proval were parking, housing and demonstration of the op- tion and agreement that the uses be restricted to tourist- related uses and that the utilities be undergrounded. Schiffer stated that Marcus had submitted a letter to the Commission indicating that he will agree to satisfy all of those conditions. Bartel stated that the letter was satisfactory to the Planning Office. -9- FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.ltl.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting May 21, 1974 Christiania Lodge Conceptual Presentation Aspen Planning & Zoning Judge Wendt was present representing the applicant. Wendt submitted final plans. Stated that the basement plans relate to the establishment of a theatre-restaurant. Stated that the number of square feet utilized is 45% of allowable density. Applicant submitted and briefly explained floor plans and elevations. Bartel stated that the Planning Office had investigated again whether or not the Qty wanted to acquire under- ground parking rights and have not received any directive on that so is being lost in the decision. Barnard questioned what the applicant was going to do with the off-street parking. Wendt stated that they would be willing to do whatever they are supposed to do. Schiffer stated that the City had decided at this stage that they did not want to use that site for underground parking. Barnard made a motion to give final approval under Ordi- nance #19 for the Durant - Galena Building. Motion se- conded by Johnson. All in favor, with the exception of Collins who was opposed. Motion carried. Stein Gantzel was present as the applicant. Gantzel stated that the original request was for studio apartments, but due to Ordinance #19 had never pursued it. Stated that the original conceptual approval had included another building with 2 unlimited units, one of which was to replace the gray frame house. Stated that this presentation took place approximately 1 year ago. Gantzel stated that instead of tearing down the gray frame (employee housing) would like conceptual approval of anything up to 2 unlimited units - each unlimited unit not to exceed three bedrooms and either add one more unit that replaces the gray house or leave the gray house as it is. Stated that if the gray house were torn down and built 2 unlimited units, in reality one of the units would have to be employee housing. Gantzel submitted map of site with building locations. Discussion on density followed. Stanford stated that the Planning Office feeling on this proposal is that approval could be granted ftr the two- unit structure providing that the gray house was removed based on a density consideration and that the vacated units which would result in the lodge be used for employee housing. Jenkins made a motion to give conceptual approval for 1 3 bedroom, 2 bath unit and one 2 bedroom, 2 bath unit in addition to the present construction on the site with this as the last construction on this lot. Motion se- conded by Vagneur. All in favor with the exception of Johnson who was opposed. Motion carried. -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM5lI C.F.HOECKELD.8.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 Bartel stated that the Planning Office would like to see the stipulation that the grey frame house be employee housing only. Jenkins amended his motion to incorporate the Planning Office's suggestion with the permission of Vagneur who seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Johnson who was opposed. AEM 8-Unit Apartment - Conceptual Presentation Schiffer pointed out that the applicant had been requested to return after the Commission had determined the density in that area. Dallas Peacock was present to represent the applicants. Peacock gave a brief history of the project for the bene- fit of new Commission member Barnard. Peacock stated that they feel that since the project~s approved at one time, and is surrounded by high-density projects, should be approved. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned if referrals had been obtained from the utility companies. Bartel stated that would come in at the preliminary pre- sentation. Peacock stated that he felt it would be an undue hard- ship to restrict the applicants to six units. Stated that these are all studio units and are approximately 530 square feet. Vagneur stated that considering the buildings that are in the vicinity, would have no problem in allowing these 8 units. Jenkins stated that he was abstaining. Landry stated that she could only approve 6 unis. Johnson stated that he too could only go for six units. Barnard stated that he did not think the density made any difference and did not want to force the applicants to redesign the building. Applicant stated that they have now allowed for 8 parking spaces. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt this was a unique situation and felt that it would be a hardship for the applicant to redesign the building. Barnard made a motion to give conceptual approval to this project conditioned on the provision for 8 parking spaces. Motion seconded by Vagneur. Members in favor: Barnard, Schiffer and Vagneur. Members opposed: Collins, Landry and Johnson. Motion NOT carried. Barnard stated that he would like to reconsider the ac- tion. Schiffer stated that it would provide some needed housing at a cost that people might be able to afford. -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIIMSI C.F.HOECKELB.B.!l L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 21, 1974 Landry stated that the Commission has asked other appli- cants to covenant the use. Applicant stated that they would covenant for long term rentals. Landry made a motion to give the project conceptual ap- proval conditioned on their putting 8 parking spaces in and covenanting for long term rentals. Motion seconded by Barnard. Roll aye; aye. call vote - Johnson, aye; Jenkins, abstain; Schiffer, Vagneur, aye; Landry, aye; Collins, aye; Barnard, Motion carried. Bibbig-Residence Bartel stated that the Commission had given conceptual approval to move a residence from the end of Hopkins to Park Avenue near the Sunny Park Subdivision. Stated that there was no fOllow-up to the application. Stated that what has happened now is that a new building is being proposed and the building is from Durant Street at West End. Stated that the Planning Office has no problem with that, but have problem with is that must still meet the requirements to show that access and parking have been approved, that water pressure exists, that there is ade- quate fire protection. Dieter Bibbig was present and stated that the proposal was for a new Victorian House instead of the little house previously proposed. Indicated the location of the access easement. Bartel stated that he was not satisfied with the parking on Park Avenue or access at a new location on Park Avenue. Bibbig stated that he had all the referrals and would like conceptual, preliminary and final approval on this pro- posal. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that in order to consider all three steps at once, the Commission must agree to it. Jenkins made a motion to consider all three stages under Ordinance #19 at one time, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Barnard made a motion to give conceptual, preliminary and final approval to the proposal under Ordinance #19 con- ditioned on their satisfying the parking requirements as far as the Engineering Department is concerned and access. Motion seconded by Vagnuer. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Meeeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. {ffe