Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19731218 -- ,.. " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORJol ~O C. F. HOECKEL B. e. a L. CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Adams at 5:10 p.m. with Chuck Vidal, Bruce Gillis Jack Jenkins, and Spence Schiffer. Also present Assistant City/ County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Minutes 12/4/73 & 12/11/73 Vidal stated that the minutes of December 4, 1973, did not reflect the fact that he was in attendance, and wished to make that correction. Jenkins made a motion to approve the minutes of December 4, 1973, as corrected and the minutes of December 11, 1973 as submitted. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Mixed-Residential Evaluation Stanford stated that progress is being made on the report for the mixed-residential area, and that the subcommittee should have recommendations ready by the middle or end of January. Stanford reminded those members on the committee that there would be a meeting on Wednesday, December 19th. PUBLIC HEARING - Tree Ordinance Chairman Adams opened the public hearing on the tree ordi- nance. "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-9 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (i) REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF ANY TREE WITH A TRUNK DIAMETER OF FOUR INCHES OR MORE; PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSION OF SITE PLAN ON SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT' DE- SCRIBING THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR THE RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF TREES; PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION NEAR TREES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AN OFFICIAL STREET LIST." Stanford stated that this ordinance would help minimize flood damage and minimize erosion. Vidal questioned how this ordinance materialized and how it could practically be administered. Stated that he felt this would be a nuisance in the administrative aspect. Stanford stated that this will be handled through the Building Department, and that the Parks and Recreation Department would handle the inventory list. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Vidal. Stated that he felt the spirit behind the ordinance was probably good, but stated he did not know if you could interfere with indi- vidual rights as far as their property is concerned. Sta- ted it was a poorly written piece of legislation and would be impossible to enforce. Stated that he felt the intent was good, but felt there must be an alternative way to protect the trees. Gillis stated that he agreed with Vidal and Schiffer, but would still like to see the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment do the inventory list. Chairman Adams stated that he agreed. Just felt that people should be made to realize that trees are a valu- able commodity. Ed DelDuca, Assistant City Engineer, stated that he dis- agreed with the sizing stated in the ordinance. Stated ""'~'."".""""-'- ... ., -- --. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM IG C. F. HOECKEL B. B. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 that he felt this should be a matter of judgment on the Staff's part. Schiffer stated that he would like to get together with other members of the Commission to develope some other ideas along this line. Jenkins made a motion that Schiffer work with the Plan- ning Office to develope something more acceptable to the Commission, seconded by Gillis. All in favor, motion carried. It was the general concensus of the Commission that the Planning Office request the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment to do the inventory list. Roaring Fork Flood Plain Study Chairman Adams opened the public hearing. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ADOPTING FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION ROARING FORK RIVER AND CASTLE AND HUNTER CREEKS DATED June, 1973 "WHEREAS, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, has completed for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County a Flood Plain Information Report Roaring Fork River and Castle and Hunter Creeks, Aspen,.Colorado, dated June 1973, and WHEREAS, above said flood plain report was presented to the City Council, County Commissioners and the public at a regular meeting of the Aspen City Council on August 13 1973, and WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Conservation Board in regular meeting assembled in Denver, Colorado. the 31st day of October, 1973, designated and approved as flood hazard areas those areas described as being inundated by an intermediate regional flood as set forth in the Flood Plain Information Report for Roaring Fork River and Castle and Hunter Creeks, Aspen, Colorado dated June 1973, and WHEREAS, the Aspen planning Commission held a public hearing on December 18, 1973, to consider the adoption of the Flood Plain Information Roaring Fork River and Castle and Hunter Creeks, dated June, 1973, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Plan- ning Commission hereby adopts Flood Plain Information Roaring Fork River and Castle and Hunter Creeks dated June 1973, to use as the standard for determining com- pliance with the City Code, Chapter 20, Subdivisions and Chapter 24, Zoning." Vidal questioned the application of this study to areas within the 100-year flood plain area versus the 50-year and 25-year areas. Ms. Baer stated that this would be used as a review as far as stream margin is concerned. Chairman Adams stated that this was an attempt to make the Flood Plain Study one of the legal tools of the Com- mission and the Building Department. Vidal stated that he felt it was similar to the arbitrary height limit. ~ .' ~-,-"""-,,,,~,-,,""....,.-....._...........,. ,,~~"'-~.""""'--------~'~"'-'.__.-," -- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.IIOECKELB.B.ll<L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Gillis made a motion to adopt the Resolution on the Roar- ing Fork Flood Plain Study, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. Traffic Signal Study Stanford pointed out that street lights had been recom- mended for the corners of Aspen, Mill, Galena and Spring Streets at Main Street. Stanford further pointed out that the Planning Office had found a discrepancy in the type of street lights which had been recommended. Stated that the Planning Office had re- searched the subject and found a type of street light that was more appropriate. Stanford stated that these recommendations are necessary to handle the present volume of traffic and are not de- signed for future traffic volume. Barbara Knight, Secretary of the Planning Office. stated that the State was quite willing to go along with the Plan- ning Office's proposal on the street lights, as long as they met the standards. Chairman Adams stated that these lights were to take the place of the one-way streets that were recommended in the Voorhees study. Gillis questioned if the City could make an agreement to remove the lights when they initiate a transportation sys- tem. Stanford stated that he felt they could. Chairman Adams pointed out that the City had requested the State to make this survey. Schiffer stated that he did not see the necessity for the light at the corner of Main and Spring. Stated that he felt the volume of traffic did not warrant a street light. Rob Roy was present and questioned if the street lights must be on all the time. Ed DelDuca stated that he thought they could operate the lights so that after a certain time late at night they could be red on stop streets and amber on Main Street. Vidal questioned if they had considered moving the light that is presently at the park to the west. Stated that he felt they should eliminate the recommendation for the light on Spring Street. Jenkins stated that he felt the light on Spring Street was appropriate due to all the development at the end of the street. Chairman Adams stated that he also agreed with the light on Spring. Stated that the light by the park should be moved east for the convenience of the school buses. Jenkins stated that the lights will help alleviate traf- fic accidents. -3- - "'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Jenkins stated that he thought the light at Spring Street was necessary, since the only other alternative would be to route traffic up Mill Street. Old Middle School Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that under Ordinance #19 the Planning Office could now review projects which they felt were not major impacts on the community, if they in- form the Commission. Ms. Baer stated that the Old Middle School was proposing to enlarge the office space and the mechanical room and to tear down the shed. Further stated that the applicant has consulted with the Building Inspector and he has no pro- blems with setbacks. Planning Office feels there is no significant impact and therefore would like to exempt this from Commission review. Schiffer made a motion to exempt this proposal from review, seconded by Gillis. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 Stevens-Ginn Buildings CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATIONS Ms. Baer stated that the location of this project is the south half of City Block 106, the remaining half being occupied by the City Market Complex. on block Jim Copland and Larry Yaw were present, architects repre- senting the proposed project. Yaw stated that the proposed use for this project would be a combined commercial, office and living accommodations. Stated that this is a unique situation since for once, three separate owners are getting together. Stated that their desire is to plan for two buildings to be implemented in the spring and the third, a year from this time. Stated that the third owner is only committed to the planning ef- fort, but not to the architectural consideration. Yaw stated that the owners wanted to handle the project this so that they could do joint site planning, plan for joint open space, parking, architectural control and to effect a relationship between the buildings that would be impossible if they were to do individual projects. Also from the standpoint of the Commission, offers a potential to co-ordinate an entire sector of the town. At this time, the architects submitted an overlay showing some of the community relationships to this project. Showed that it is on a peripheral corner of the core area right next to mixed-residential and accommodation-recreation. Yaw stated that the urban plan for Aspen designates three things that this project would fulfill: (1) potential cre- ation of a small neighborhood service center, that is in conjunction with City Market and some of the ground level uses; (2) provision of living units for residents - studio or I-bedroom units; (3) office space. Further stated that they would be treating them as indi- vidual projects, with planning, the architectural relation- ships, open space planned together. Stated that all buil- dings would be three levels. Yaw stated that one of the important links generated by the location with respect to the neighborhood is a mid- -4- .....-"-"'--~---_......._--~'~~_..-... - ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" LF.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 block crossing from the residential area. Also allows them to effect approximately 15% more open space between the buildings. Further stated that on those two buildings, proposed a parking structure that would be underneath. Parking would be anticipated for only the people who live and work in the buildings. Feel parking is an asset for the City at this point because it is on a peripheral sector of the town, therefore there is no penetration into the City and it would be sublevel and security effected so that you're not encouraging the skiier, etc. to park there. Will be providing 35 parking spaces. Calculate 30-35 employees for the two buildings. Yaw stated that approximately 40% of the space could be leased at this time. Vidal questioned if there would be any irreversable de- cisions made that would affect Baker's property. Yaw stated that this was not a planning document. Schiffer questioned how many houses were presently on that property. Yaw stated that there were presently two houses. Stated that one was owned by Robin Molny and will be moved. Not certain as to the status of the other house. Stated that they would be happy to get the opinion of the Historic Preservation Committee on the status of the houses. Went over the basis of this concept with the Planning Of- fice. Basis is three-fold: (1) shared open-space; (2) the mid-block cirmlation7 and (3) massing and treatment of buildings on both sides. Ms. Baer stated that the planning Office like to see the third building as part of the project. Were recommending approval of the project with the following modifications: (1) Historic Preservation Review (2) What happens with the east and west facades - HPC should look at those. (3) Recommend model at the next stage. (4) Want apartments to guarantee or meet employee housing need. Agreement that they would not be condominiumized in the future. (5) Covenant the leases for 1 year. (6) No on-sight parking of any kind. Ms. Baer stated that if this is to be a pedestrian-oriented town, the prohibition of parking would be essential. Yaw stated that he would agree to all the conditions, with the exception of no on-sight parking. Stated that there were some conditions he would like to point out to the Commission: (1) Location on absolute periphera of the central area causes no vehicular penetration of the area. (2) Will be 30-35 people who live and work here who will require parking somewhere. People who live here, if they eliminated the parking, would eith- er park in the City Market parking lot or in the -5- .- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKEL8.B.&L.CQ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 nearby residential area. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Yaw, since people will take their cars anyway. Vidal stated he felt the point was very valid also. Yaw stated that since the parking would be underneath, woulc not be encouraging other people to park there. Also with- in walking distance of the trade area. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was aware of the burden being put on City Market, but stated that the park- ing could be policed. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was also concerned with auto emission problems, which are 88% over state standards in the core area. Gillis stated that his idea of a neighborhood shopping area included driving to that area. Vidal stated that due to the fact that City Market was there and it was an automobile-oriented corner, felt that parking was appropriate in that location, but felt the parking should not be restricted to employee parking. Jenkins stated that as long as the Commission continued to allow parking in the core area, we perpetuate the situation that already exists. Yaw stated that when the transportation system is com- pleted, the underground parking area could be converted. Vidal questioned the Commission on whether or not they identified this as a neighborhood shopping center or part of the core area. Chairman Adams suggest that the applicant go back and do some thinking as far as the parking problem is concerned and perhaps they could come up with another solution. Gillis request that the applicant do a massing diagram or model for the Commission. Schiffer made a motion to give approval to the conceptual presentation subject to each of the conditions recommended by the Planning Office, except for the parking question which should be determined at a later date. Motion seconded by Vidal. All in favor, motion carried. Brinkman Remodel Ms. Baer pointed out that this remodel was of the old Aspen Lumber & Supply Building, located on Mill Street. Further pointed out that this is an interior remodel only with a use change. Ms. Deanna Brinkman, Applicant, was present and her Ar- chitect David Hauter. Ms. Brinkman stated that the owner of the building is Mrs. White, and had given them an eight year lease on the premises which lease contains two addi- tional one year options. Ms. Brinkman further stated that the proposed use of the building would include an Oriental Japanese restaurant and several retail commercial spaces. Applicant further stated that under the lease, has approximately 12,000 sq. -6- ""'."" ,'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves fORM ~o C. F. HOECK EL B. B. a L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 ft. now in a vacant lot directly to the west of the exist- ing building which the applicant is willing to devote to parking spaces for the shops and related uses. This park- ing would be leveled and graveled and paved, if the Com- mission did not feel that the additional paving might con- tribute to their already existing runoff problems. Hauter submitted conceptual drawings of the applicant's proposal. Chairman Adams questioned what kind of facilities they would have for freight delivery. Hauter explained that the alley could be used as a ser- vice road. Further pointed out the location of access to the parking area. Hauter explained that they were proposing to landscape the land that would be used in conjunction with the building. Ms. Brinkman stated that her agreement with Mrs. White included cleaning up the lot and do something to improve the esthetics of the area. Jenkins stated that he objected to the parking and stated that he felt that it encouraged more vehicular traffic in the core area. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was recommending approval of this project with the following conditions: (1) would prefer not to have the parking used for the same reasons as for the Stevens-Ginn Building. (2) Further recommend that any restaurant be fitted with the gas-fired after burners recommended in the air pollution study. Vidal stated that as far as the parking was concerned, the alternatives in this case are significantly different as far as trade-offs are concerned. Ms. Baer stated that they would not require Ms. Brinkman to purchase parking when she is able to provide it on the property. Gillis made a motion to accept this project in the concep- tual stage, with the exception that no parking be provided and the conditions of the Planning Office be met. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Ute Village Chairman Adams pointed out that the Commission must make a decision on this project tonight. Stated that the ap- plicant had withdrawn their subdivision request. Ms. Baer stated that she had received a letter requesting that they withdraw until January 15th. Vidal stated that he felt the applicant had misunderstood what they were withdrawing from. Since there was no one present representing the project, it was the concensus of the Commission that the applicant was temporarily withdrawing their request for conceptual approval. -7- _"".___'~.,."_n..._"""-,,,,___,,,,^. .""","~~"._____",,,,,_,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,".W"__'~'_' -- , - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMSG C.F.HOECKELB.B.Il:L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Clarendon Condominiums Ms. Baer pointed out that the Commission must act on the project by the 10th of January. Stated that the Commis- sion could either act tonight or hold a special meeting on the 8th of January. Vidal stated that they had not really made the decision to not extend. Understood that they had 30 days to make that decision. Questioned the Commission on what activites the Commission would go through to help the project get further down the road as to making a decision. Chairman Adams stated that he did not feel the Commission had enough information at this time to approve the concep- tual presentation. Felt the only other alternative would be to disapprove at this time. Vidal stated that he assumed if the Commission disapproved the project, they would supply the reasons for disapproval and what other data would have been required. Schiffer stated he would prefer to approve the project subject to the condition that it is in compliance with the recommendations as far as the economic impact study is concerned. Jenkins stated that he would rather not vote on it until all the information is in. Stated that the subcommittee would have some very concrete information before the 10th. Concensus of the Commission was to hold a special meeting on the 8th of January to consider this project. Tree House Charlie Weaver was present representing the project. Ms. Baer stated that this project has been seen by the subcommittee. Stated that the project was modular, pedes- tal houses to be constructed on Ute Avenue (Lot 2 Hoag Subdivision). Stated that this was a request for 6 dwel- ling units on less on 18,482 square feet. Each unit has approximately 800 square feet. Ms. Baer further pointed out that the subcommittee had recommended this project with the rental restrictions. Stated that the project would also have to go through subdivision. Weaver submitted a model of the project. Stated that these particular houses lend themselves to a slope. Had located six open areas in the trees, so would be minimal tree removal. Does not want to restrict himself to long term rental, but had agreed to covenant it to the rental restrictions of the Commission. Further stated he would like the Commission to inspect the site area. Weaver pointed out that the terrain lends itself to of- fering privacy for the individual houses. By raising or lowering the pedestals, can further maneuver the privacy of each house. Weaver stated that there were two similar houses which he would like the Commission to see in order to visualize how this project would come together. Chairman Adams suggest the Commission table the project -8- ,.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.a:L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 until the meeting on the 8th of January. trip to inspect the site be at 4:45 p.m. be scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Suggest a field and the meeting Villa of Aspen Phase II Attorney Art Daily was present and request aver batim transcript of this presentation: ,....,_~,.._^__>._____'._.'n'~"_____'_.~_....,. "_""",,_,,"~'-'~';_""M",'_~"'''''''''__''''''~'_''-'''_~'''''_~'' r-, ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORJol 51 C. F. ~OECKEL B. 8. !> L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Just to bring this up to date, this is the , and this is about the fourth time we've been here. I think we started in July. A number of recommendations were made by the Planning Office at that time, and by the Engineer- ing Department, and we came back in on November 20th fol- lowing a meeting with the Ordinance #19 committee. We came before the Planning & Zoning commission on the 20th and at that time the Planning & Zoning Commission expressed additional concerns and the Planning Office had a few ad- ditional ones. Rich might explain what changes have been made. ART DAILY RICH WILDE The basic changes have been control of the radius where fire access, the change in parking lot location to allow these two trees to remain where they are. Just two things that were meant to be on and weren't shown on the other plat were the pedestrian access above notation the turn-around area will be posted and just one second page pedestrian easement will be provided for. SPENCE SHCIFFER How about the problem with the access road. We were dis- cussing this problem with Power Plant Road. There was a question whether or not.... RICH WILDE Power Plant Road, of course, is not on the property or not part of the project, there is an increased radius here so access is easier in this direction. But you have no alternatives to the usage of Power Plant Road to gain access? CHAIRMAN ADAMS BRUCE GILLIS Do you mean by that what the maximum buildup for that whole area was, including this guy's property, what the traffic problem would be on that small access? Isn't that part of the recommendation? RICH WILDE It was part of the recommendation on a 24 foot wide, 2-lane road, you can handle upwards of 2,000 cars an hour. DONNA BAER Well, he's talking about what could happen..... RICH WILDE Traffic generation, right. So as far as the capacity of this size road to handle traffic generation in that area I feel it would be more than adequate. DONNA BAER Well, Rich, that's a street in road, the figures you quoted. in front. town. That isn't a private And that's like this street RICH WILDE The figures I'm quoting are for a 24 foot wide, 2-lane road. JACK JENKINS Dead end road. DONNA BAER Dead end road? RICH WILDE It takes a section of the street and how many cars can pass through it in an hour. BRUCE GILLIS A dead end, it's got to be a different figure ... parking? JACK JENKINS The highway out here going to the airport, that's a two- lane road, and that doesn't have the same capacity as that road. -10- _.. .,,,.,,,~',~,,,,",,v,,-",,,'~._"n'~...____._... _._~_._.'... '. M ..._,~..__"."",,,,",,,,~,,,,.,*"",.',~'.,','w.,,, ,.-- --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F.HOECKELB.8.!>L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 ART DAILY It's my understanding that the traffic engineer for the City has expressed the opinion of his department that the 24 foot wide roadway is more than adequate for the ingress and egress of the residents of the proposed development. BRUCE GILLIS Plus any further development? CHUCK VIDAL We are concerned about the potential crossing this neck, of the total development potential of the area, as to whether that road is adequate to handle not only this, but this potential of the other piece of property. ART DAILY If that was one of the City's concerns, was the traffic engineer, has he expressed an opinion on that? DONNA BAER Ed, have you expressed an opinion on that? The 24 foot wide road is adequate for the future develop- ment of both properties, however, if someone parks there then there is one lane, would be the only objection. It's not adequate if someone parks along one lane, if no op- portunity to park off the road except in the parking spaces provided. ED DELDUCA BRUCE GILLIS Under current zoning, what is the total potential build- up of this property down here? How many units? Still it has to be a consideration. DONNA BAER That's tourist now. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Well, they're about to pass on all un subdivided property, one house for ten acres. DONNA BAER That's the interim zoning. That will be zoning, it will just be across the board zoning. But that wouldn't nec- essarily be included, that little parcel. The river might be the boundary. CHAIRMAN ADAMS That's R-15 now, and.... that property should be because you were planning on buying it at one point. It's less than an acre, Jim, and at the time we contemp- lated buying it, of course, we contemplated also annexing into the City and obtaining the same zoning we had here, and that rapidly, it became obvious that it wouldn't be easily obtained, and that idea was dropped. ART DAILY CHAIRMAN ADAMS Well, Bruce, in answer to your question, it's R-15, it's about an acre, three units could be placed on it. So that makes a total of three down there. Plus the two or three that are already existing. CHUCK VIDAL Well, I think that could be a very, you know, you could calculate that out very easily and I would, to the design element of that road I would say it's probably going to be proven that it's adequate to handle that density. I don't know what your concerns are relative to Power House Road and other aspects of this. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Have all of you been down to see the site? Spencer, have you seen that? SPENCE SCHIFFER I haven't been down to the site itself, but I've been down around Power Plant Road and that vicinity, and the only -11- ,.. _.,~.-,......~"..."~""",.~."."~~-,,,-~_.._~;~----,.....~._.~._- ",..- ,.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOItM50 C.F.HOECKElO.O.l.Il.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 problem I really have was with respect to the future pro- blem of handling traffic on Power Plant Road at some time in the future it becomes necessary for the City to widen that road, I would like to see them participate in the cost of that. I think that would be covered in a.... That's an agreement that the developer's already made. He is willing to agree to that on a plat. ART DAILY CHUCK VIDAL And, Art, because this is a private road, is the developer going to make restrictions on the parking on the road itself? RON WINDEMULLER It will be posted and towed. ART DAILY Sure, definitely. CHUCK VIDAL Because that would affect the capacity of the road. JACK JENKINS Well, my feeling about it hasn't been satisfied about it at all, because of the topography over here, twelve units going in a strip this long and that wide, it hasn't changed a bit. Because this is completely unusuable land. ART DAILY What is it that bothers you about the development? JACK JENKINS Well, two or three things about it. In the first place, any parking that is not in a marked parking spot in here, any time there is a fire, any time there is reasons for access of any kind, one or two cars in the wrong location makes it inaccessible. Anybody that has a party down there that attracts more than one extra car, that thing's going to be a traffic jam. I don't see how it could be other- wise. ART DAILY Well, to start with, Jack, you've got 24 parking spaces here for twelve units, which is 37% over what's required. JACK JENKINS Let's say you have two for each. ART DAILY Okay. And the way they're aligned at the present time they provide for a 24 foot wide, or wider, at all points, access road through here. Now, there's a couple of points, where if a guy misparks, it can happen anywhere. It can happen anywhere. We can't control that. JACK JENKINS But it's different, Art, if that road is one that goes through here and there's a crossroad here and an alley behind it here. There's all kinds of other access. It's a different situation than that situation. We're not looking at generalitites, we're looking at a specific lo- cation. If one person has a party with ten cars only, therE isn't anyplace for them to go except in that road. ART DAILY In your mind, Jack, is parking the main problem? JACK JENKINS The need from my side, the situation is this. You're put- ting twelve units on a strip of land that has only this much use to it, and there's no other area available. It's just that's what it is. ART DAILY Well, we can provide additional parking if that's the kind of problem we've got. We've got some space in here that we could use for visitor parking. -12- ""- .""....._~.~,-..,,.""~~~~"~........._..... -- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~OR'" 10 C. F. HOECKr::~ a. B. I> L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 Well, do you think it's safe to say that there could be a possible congestion? Would it be possible that there could possibly be a situation where a fire truck couldn't get in and out of there? Or an ambulance? JACK JENKINS I could see it happening, and I could see it happening on Sneaky Lane and a number of other places that we have in the City. I think it's just a matter of degree, and if we resolve it down to an acceptable safety factor, then you have a legitimate project. We have space for additio- nal parking if that's something that you feel we ought to put in. ART DAILY JACK JENKINS What do you think about the statement I made? Do you think it is possible we could have a problem? Fire, ambulance? RON WINDEMULLER Very remotely, Jack, if you've got enough width there that you've got 24 feet, even if one car parked illegally, there is still adequate room for an ambulance to get by. We're not talking any half a mile of length. We're talking a- bout a maximum of a couple three hundred feet, and a fire truck, as far as getting in the way of their, one good bump and a car is out of the way. That's been done con- tinually. CHAIRMAN ADAMS What did you do to satisfy our request that the back of the building be opened up to some kind of fire fighting equipment? RICH WILDE Well, the only thing we can do is that the one fire hy- drant was moved farther north to this location and this walkway exists in the back. Other than that there is really is not much that can be done on that site to allow other access. CHAIRMAN ADAMS How high is the retaining wall going to be on this side of that walkway? RICH WILDE Back here? CHAIRMAN ADAMS Yes. RICH WILDE Some place there won't be any. DONNA BAER It looks like 15 feet all the way along. RICH WILDE There is a fifteen foot elevation change from the front to the back, however, at the rear of the building, you're one floor above the front of the building. The access is one story above the front access. DONNA BAER Well, you're cutting in here for the building. The differ- ential here is roughly fifteen feet all the way across. Your path will be, you'll come up your path by stairs, is this correct? ART DAILY Jim, we've addressed this problem at some length with Bill Caille, who is principally concerned with this, and if Bill's still here, we might ask him to present his comments. A lot of information about the units and their construc- tion was given to Bill that he wasn't familiar with before. CHAIRMAN ADAMS What's your feeling, Bill? -13- "",""",,~,"-_~C""__'" .....~_~."'.~_,...__"""'_._,.."..'_~.~'"""""._""'~_~~~.~. .-.,....~~.'-<...~_....,',_.,"...j. . - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 BILL CAILLE Well, as Jack mentioned, there could be something here. That I'll agree with. you're ever going to control that a problem across Main Street. a problem with There's no way There could be CHAIRMAN ADAMS But you have alternate routes to go on. BILL CAILLE Okay. I'm not concerned with, if that problem occurs and you lose a building, that's not my concern as long as we don't lose any people. I'm more concerned with the life- safety of the thing. We've had several meetings over this. It's not the best situation in the world, granted. They have made concessions with this walkway across the back which gives the people access out the back themselves, which I'm more concerned with them getting out. As far as the fire equipment getting in, that's one of the things that may happen and it may not, I can't argue the point. Jack's got a valid point. I can't argue that with him. JACK JENKINS Are these two or three story buildings? BILL CAILLE Three, technically. JACK JENKINS So the access to the back is through all floors or just the top floor? No, just the second floor, which will be, from what I gather, that will be the living area. In other words, without an elevation drawing it's awful hard. That's what confused me so badly on it. What we're talking a- bout is underground parking, basically, except at the front it's not. The back will be below grade. The grade, the finished grade from my understanding, will be at the level of the second floor in the back only. They will have ac- cess out of the living area through that way. Also, the fireman can, if they have to, at least get around there. It's not the most ideal situation in the world, but we have reduced the hazard by providing better access to a point where Willard thinks he can handle it. BILL CAILLE CHUCK VIDAL What's the maximum distance that you can operate or fight a fire from a truck or your equipment? In other words, let's say, we're talking about 300 feet and your truck gets stopped down here, and is it impossible to say that you could still fight that fire by running hoses if, in fact, that happened, or let's say, you get to here, is that an unreasonable distance, because a City block is 270 feet long. BILL CAILLE No, it's not, if you get over 500 feet, then you've got a problem. The less line you lay, handwise you work with the easier it is. By the time you lay 300 feet of 2~" hose you don't move it once you get down here. BRUCE GILLIS How about coming down from the top? BILL CAILLE Well, Willard and I discussed at one time, it's possible you can set the snorkle up in here. That's a steep grade. Handling a 2~" handline it would be impossible. There is a foot path here. Yeah, walking down it is one thing, and trying to handle a 2~" handline is something else. They get to be pretty awkward the longer it get's the worse it gets. It takes three men to drag a line. Especially after it's charged. -14- "~"~._-"1-"'-"'>". ..~- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.O.& L. CO. BRUCE GILLIS CHAIRJl1AN ADAMS BRUCE GILLIS CHAIRMAN ADAMS ART DAILY SPENCE SCHIFFER CHAIRMAN ADAMS SPENCE SCHIFFER Yes, but that would be a shorter way then from the We've all played around with this considerably and nit- picked it to death again. The one glaring fact that sticks out in my mind is that, perhaps, we haven't faced the real issue and the real issue may be that this piece of pro- perty has density, as proposed, to be as densely populated as it is, is probably pretty damned unsuitable for that kind of development. Maybe you want to toss that around a little. I don't know how suitable it is to any devel- opment. I agree with that, but where, again do we stand, what was approved before to what we're considering now? I think that if you really want to make a decision with some responsibility, you let the City lawyer worry about where do we stand, and make a decision that has something to do with how health, welfare, and safety of the commun- ity. I might comment on it a little bit, Jim. The first thing that occurs to me is that if, in fact, the City has con- cerns about the viability of the project at all, it should have come up a long time ago. A tremendous amount of time and effort has been spent on this. Now, I recognize that this is the kind of argument that you guy's hear all the time, but I think you're also familiar with how many times we've been in here , and I think it even goes back to last year. Secondly, after talking with Bill, Bill's conver- sations with Willard Clapper, it appears to us that we have eliminated all unacceptable safety difficulties with respect to this property. We have brought ourselves down within an acceptable safety factor. And then here's the third thing. Of course you mentioned that, it goes back to the initial proposals that were made to the City last year when annexation of this pro- perty was approved. And while admittedly, no specific designs were presented at that time, the City did see some early plats which did show twelve units along here, an- nexation, rezoning and everything else was conditioned upon 48 units going in on this property. So these are all con- siderations. I would like to say that I agree with Art. I think it's kind of late in the game to tell these people you don't like their project at all and you can't build it down there. There are legitimate problems, and there seem to be, let's work with them and get to them and deal with them. I mean if we're just trying to nit-pick and find other ways to tell them we don't like it, that's not valid. Well, if we were nit-picking this for crazy reasons, I ad- mit we probably have been evading the one issue that we should have addressed ourselves to a long time ago and all I'm suggesting is that we're considering at this point. We still have the responsibility. You ask a man who is apparently an expert in the field if it's an acceptable situation and he shrugs his shoulders and intimates that it could be a trap, and we've got certain responsibilities in that. I can see that. I don't see these problems as problems -15- ,-_.--~.~".~.<"..>~..-..t-~..- ,.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M 5~ C. F. HOECK"" B. B. II< ". CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 that can't be resolved. JACK JENKINS Have you looked at the particular site with the things layed out on it? SPENCE SCHIFFER No, I said I haven't, and I'd like to. JACK JENKINS Okay. This is the thing that makes me make my decision and my feeling has been that from the first time I saw it and I haven't changed it since, and that's the reason. SPENCE SCHIFFER Well, all I'm saying is if that is the case, it's late in the game to be telling these people that, to forget it, you know? If at one time, you led them to believe that they could build the thing if they resolved certain pro- blems and they come back and say "here's how we resolved them" and if we don't like it we can tell them no good, but don't say "Well, forget those problems. The main problem is that we don't like your project and you're not going to build it." CHUCK VIDAL Addressing yourself to Jack's problem, I see two possible solutions. One is you reduce the density significantly or you provide enough parking to where you eliminate almost 100% the possibility that people will park on the street. Or you possibly widen the street out, to where if that oc- curs, which is what he's concerned about, that you haven't reduced the safety factors significantly, that that can occur and you still have access. And maybe that says that "Alright, this road is adequate for access,"but to put to lie Jack's apprehension, if you've got a guy on each side of the street, parked, can you still get a fire truck by, maybe widening that road to 28 feet or to 30 feet would, in fact, allow that to happen, that the whole road could be parked from one end to the other with cars, and, in fact, you could drive a fire truck down the middle of it. I don't know what those measurements are, but maybe that's an alternative that you could consider to where, then I'd say you've reduced significantly the probability, not the possibility, but the probability of there being a problem. JACK JENKINS I say this. If you start at one unit, which is obviously ridiculous for the use of the land, and you come up to a matter of twelve, which to me has the same connotation, it's so jam packed I don't feel it's safe for anybody. Somewhere in the middle you have compromise, but, that num- ber of people and the potential for any weekend situation which could put 15 or 20 extra cars in that area, and the reason that this is different is that it isn't like up town. If you've got blocks in all directions, if people can't find a parking place here they go around the block, a block or two away they park and walk to where they're going. Down here there's no way to get there. In the winter time they're not going to park up above and walk down there. They can't park out on this street. They can't go anywhere but here. RON WINDEMULLER This is an access road It's a matter of what? there. walk down there. They will use it. 200 and some feet from here to ART DAILY They're all going to members of the same ownership assoc- iation. Maybe there would be some.... -16- ,..--.----"'--, -~....~.-..-....._'~.>.-_''"~.,_..~,.,-~-_.....~~. - FOR~ 5~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. /I L. 1:0. ",'>" - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting December 18, 1973 Aspen Planning & Zoning CHUCK VIDAL ART DAILY CHUCK VIDAL RON WINDEMULLER CHUCK VIDAL RON WINDEMULLER CHUCK VIDAL RON WINDEMULLER CHUCK VIDAL ART DAILY BILL CAILLE ART DAILY BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE Can you widen that road? Let me go on, Jack. There is room for more parking. I didn't get to complete that earlier, along this part of the road here, which I guess is one of the areas where there is a threat that someone might park and block off a fire truck. And there's also space along in here where we could provide six or seven spaces in here and post it visi- tor parking. But you still might not have enough parking. I guess the answer, if Jack's problem really is access, I would be in- clined to try to widen the street and not necessarily pro- vide more parking. How much is enough, Chuck? Well, I think that's a calculable thing. You can put two cars and you can determine how wide the fire truck is.... At 24 feet, you can do that now. You can put two cars on either side and still go down the middle. With a fire truck? Yes. Well, maybe I would present that argument. I mean, if you could validate that, you know, and maybe put an extra couple of feet on that for contingency or safety's sake, I guess, I don't know whether that would satisfy Jack at all, but relative to the issue that he's brought up, it would satisfy me a long way. Let's ask Bill how wide a track you need to bring that truc~ through, the big one. To drive it through? Well, I think that's what bothers .... I've never actually measured, to be perfectly honest with you, but I would consider 6 or 7 feet maximum, just in the width. How many units do we have in town? We have three pumpers and a snorkel. So it's four units, and on a given fire, we'll say might encompass three of those, how many units would you want to use? Two minimum. Possibly a third one. How and mal would you out again situation? get three of them in there, turned around, and function with them. Would that be a nor- Are you happy with that? No, it's not normal, and like I mentioned to start with, that it leaves a guess. It's not the most ideal situation in the world. I'd love to see another road out there some- where, but physically it's possible. -17- !""' /""". RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL 0.0."" l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 JACK JENKINS Everybody envisions a road, a fire truck, a single pro- blem. But let's take three fire trucks and two pickups and the place where the people would come down to fight the fire park their trucks. How many people are in the volunteer fire department? BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE JACK JENKINS Thirty. Thirty. And how do they get to the fire? Some ride in the trucks, most of them go in their own cars. In their own cars. Where would they park them in this con- dition. Well.... I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm dead serious. Right, okay. As long as you're behind the truck. Oh, behind the truck? where we've got to get the fire truck? Then what if we get a situation that truck out of there in a hurry, BILL CAILLE Then we're in a world of hurt, Jack. Then what you're talking about now is a professional paid department,with somebody still at the station. I don't mean that. I mean, we get in here and we get a situation where we want to get that truck backing out and all the volunteer trucks are behind it. We're going to have thirty people coming in some number of cars, whatever it is. JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE Okay, you say they bring ten cars, that's one thing they no better than to do is to block the truck in to start with. I'll say that much for the fire department. But let's say these people are home and there's just five extra cars and somebody tries to get thirty cars into there. JACK JENKINS BILL CAILLE Well, like I mentioned earlier, I'm not really concerned if all twelve units burn to the ground, so be it. If we can't get in there to put the thing out, that's a property damage thing and I'm not really concerned with that. SPENCE SCHIFFER Maybe you need to get there to get the people out. BILL CAILLE That's what we're concerned with is getting the people out. SPENCE SCHIFFER Well, what recommendations can you make specific recom- mendations to these people so that they can resolve that? JACK JENKINS Let's take the situation where we can take three fire truckf and fifteen volunteer pieces of equipment - pickups, pas- senger cars, whatever, and as a result of a fire in three of those units or four, because they're connected that's very simple thing to have. With three fire trucks and fif- teen additional units, and every parking space is filled. BILL CAILLE Well, with a 24 foot road, they park at the edge of the.' road. If you have one car each side, Jack, how wide's a -18- ~ .... -- -,,_._""'..--~~,,~_._.,.'.....~. "-'- ~ --. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.IiL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 car? Four feet, five feet? That's ten feet you're taking up. That still leaves you fourteen. And I can get a truck through. If I can't get it through 14 feet, I'm hurting. I can see your point, and to a point I agree. It's not the most ideal situation in the world. But, they have made.... As far as that goes we can sit up on the bridge and we can pour water over it, with a snorkel I can hit the end of that building. BRUCE GILLIS Would that be any better if there was a fire wall between each unit? BILL CAILLE Well, okay. With their construction, there is, which is another concession they made today. It'll be type five, one hour. These are actually individual units with a two-hour wall between each one, which limits the hazard again. The hazard is still there, but the ratio is being reduced. Now, I'm not saying you're not going to have a fire down there, you're not going to lose the whole thing. But they're reducing the hazard by the particular type of construction they're going to do. This is one of the other, what is it, fire zone 3 down there, they're allowed type five ... one-hour, Jack, is it? JACK JENKINS I don't know. BILL CAILLE And they're going to go one hour plus each unit will be individual with a one hour wall for here, an air space and another one hour wall, plus the underground parking are all concrete, which will ease another hazard. So I think what we're getting into now is construction more than CHAIRMAN ADAMS Just a nervous flicking of your small finger. Any more questions? SPENCE SCHIFFER Well, now, you were talking about the possibility of hav- ing more access to the... you know, talking about another road. Is there any way in the world to get another road down here? BILL CAILLE Not with the 750 slope. CHUCK VIDAL I mean, that would have been the simplest solution.... It might be, it's feasible to bring a, you know, a better path down, or that type of thing. But nothing for ve- hicles. ART DAILY Well, I'll entertain any kind of a motion at this point. CHAIRMAN ADAMS SPENCE SCHIFFER Well, where do we stand procedurally on this, I mean, did we disapprove it the first few times around, or what hap- pened? DONNA BAER This is stream margins, subdivision and Ordinance #19. ART DAILY Is this.... CHAIRMAN ADAMS Well, you need conceptual approval of the project. We need preliminary approval of the plat and we need .... DONNA BAER Approval or disapproval of the stream margin. -19- ,,,--,-,^-'~=-","~.---'" "-'-""-'.~..""'" ~ ,.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.l!.L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 CHAIRMAN ADAMS Hunter stream margin. CHUCK VIDAL And then we have to clarify where we, because you know, I thought we were kind of through conceptual by virtue of the past approving of this in concept of density. CHAIRMAN ADAMS I didn't understand that. DONNA BAER Yeah, I think, I think that's true. I think you're right. On Ordinance #19, we gave them tentative approval condi- tioned on subdivision approval. SPENCE SCHIFFER And where do you stand on the subdivision? DONNA BAER And we're still pending on stream margin. SPENCE SCHIFFER Is this the first time you've been here on a subdivision? No, it's about the third. ART DAILY CHUCK VIDAL They've been sent back with corrections to make. SPENCE SCHIFFER So it's been disapprovaed each one of those times or ap- proved with conditions? CHAIRMAN ADAMS No, it has not been approved, they've just simply been re- quested to go back and try to work out some better ar- rangements. And you know, that's been our problem. CHUCK VIDAL The last one was the access, satisfying somebody that that road was adequate to handle the traffic circulation and address themselves to Jack's problem. DONNA BAER Yes, there's a long... There were other conditions origi- nally. For example, that Wright-McLaughlin do a drain- age study as a condition of final plat. I mean, there's a long complicated story behind it. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Anyway, the important thing tonight is to make a decision on the preliminary plat. DONNA BAER Yes. Well, and I suppose stream margins, but that should be conditional on the drainage study anyway. And that's still pending, the drainage thing. CHUCK VIDAL ART DAILY Right, and that would be presented prior to final plat ap- plication. SPENCE SCHIFFER Well, so the stream margin request has not been presented before, is this... DONNA BAER Yes, it's being presented the first time. SPENCE SCHIFFER Nothing's ever been done on it? DONNA BAER Yes, they... the original plat had this turn-around over here in the flood plain. It was moved back. SPENCE SCHIFFER Yes, well, just what I want to know is that could we ap- prove the stream margin SUbject to those things? DONNA BAER No, it never was definitely approved, and it should be sub- ject to the Wright-McLaughlin study because, you see here, you've got, for an example, fifteen feet differential -20- -'._.~-'---- ....... - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.I.IL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 and what, about 20 feet of cribbing here? And you're going to be, you know, disturbing this natural bank to an extent that we don't know what happens to the drainage, the run- off the pollution into the river. As a result, the same situation prevails here, in other words you're cutting back into that. This is extremely steep. CHAIRMAN ADAMS So what you're saying is we can't really do anything under stream margins until Wright-McLaughlin.... DONNA BAER Well, I wouldn't think so because you don't know what, I mean, I don't know what's going to happen to that. Well, traditionally, stream margin comes in as a part of building permit anyway, and then it comes before us at that time. CHUCK VIDAL DONNA BAER They made a stream margin request. CHUCK VIDAL Oh, they did? I see. Okay. SPENCE SCHIFFER You see, my problem is, you've got to take action within a certain time period, so what's the time period for stream margins? DONNA BAER There's not one, I don't think. SPENCE SCHIFFER I think there is one. DONNA BAER Well, they can, and essentially what they did was agree to go back. I mean, otherwise we'd get into a jammed up situ- ation where you just deny and then let them come back and deny and let them come back or approve it with conditions that are impossible, you know, to approve on. The Engineering Department request in it's first recom- mendation memorandum that we have a Wright-McLaughlin study done prior to final plat. And that's kind of the condition it's gone on and the memo of the Planning Office of November 20, which sort of came along with our meeting of that time, on that day, stated that stream margins determination okay subject to Wright-McLaughlin. Maybe that could be made continuing still a condition. ART DAILY SPENCE SCHIFFER That's your recommendation at some place? DONNA BAER Yes. It was the original one and because of the changes we specifically asked or made. I think the problem is, sure, you can take the whole hill away, you know. The P & Z's problem with it is, how much engineering, re-eng- ineering of the site are you going, is acceptable. In other words, that's all of our problems, you know. What can you do? You can build out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, too. You know, they can poke a whole hill away to get that extra access and circulation. CHUCK VIDAL I'd like to make a motion that we approve the preliminary subdivision map as submitted, that we postpone any action on the stream margin request and consider that at the same time we consider the final subdivision map, at which time we should have the available information from the drainage study. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Do I hear a second? -21- -~~..-_.~.~,-~,-----"- ,..... .-.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. r. ~OE:CKEL B. e. II< l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 BRUCE GILLIS I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Any discussion? SPENCE SCHIFFER Yeah, I'd like.... what I would say with some concern after this procedural hangup about doing things with , I would prefer to approve the stream margin subject to the Wright-McLaughlin study, because that is what the Plan- nigh Office recommends, you know, I think we should do that, subject to that study. CHUCK VIDAL I guess the problem is that relative to the stream margin, we're not really approving anything, 'cause it's all roun- ded up in that study, so procedurally, that would be satis- factory with me as far as.... SPENCE SCHIFFER I just prefer to approve it subject to that, rather than say, let's just wait and see what happens. BRUCE GILLIS I withdraw my second. CHUCK VIDAL I amend my motion to approve the stream margin also at this point, subject to the drainage plan submittal and approval at that time. BRUCE GILLIS Now I second. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Okay, any more discussion? I guess we better have a roll call vote, Casey. CASEY ARMSTRONG Jim Adams? CHAIRMAN ADAMS No. CASEY ARMSTRONG Chuck Vidal? CHUCK VIDAL Yes. CASEY ARMSTRONG Bruce Gillis? BRUCE GILLIS Yes. CASEY ARMSTRONG Jack Jenkins? JACK JENKINS No. CASEY ARMSTRONG Spence Schiffer? SPENCE SCHIFFER Yes. CHAIRMAN ADAMS Okay, thank you, gentlemen. ART DAILY I have one question that just occurred to me as the vote was going on. Does that also constitute Ordinance #19 approval, or was that something that was sort of resolved? DONNA BAER Well, that's subject on the final subdivision approval. That's subject on subdivision being approved. Okay, so we're through, let's say, conceptual stage on that. Is that, I know that went to the committee and they ap- proved it. ART DAILY -22- "... ,.., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORJol 51 C. F. HO~CKEL B. B. II L. \;0. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 18, 1973 ART DAILY Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN ADAMS You're welcome. Bruce Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Spence Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.