Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960416PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, and Steve Buettow. Excused were Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich, and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton asked if the two way street on Hyman in front of Kraut will be open soon. Michaelson responded that he would check. STAFF COMMENTS Dave Michaelson, Staff introduced Bob Nevins who is a landscape architect by training, which has been great working with Aspen Mountain PUD. Michaelson said the Small Lodge Work Session with Council is Tuesday, April 23, and he rescheduled the ADU update to May 7. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. MINUTES MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of March 19, 1996 and April 2, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. 971 Ute Avenue / Conditional Use David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the notice is proper and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 Bob Nevins, Staff said this proposal is to construct a 410sqfl. ADU, that will contain approximately 343sqft. of net livable area. Nevins said the studio unit is to be located in a partially below-grade level of a reconstructed residence, located within the R-15 zone. Nevins said the current house is a one story log cabin between two contemporary style single-family residences, it is perpendicular to Ute Avenue and the proposed ADU is on the Southwestern portion of the home with a private entrance and a walkway. Tygre asked if there is an FAR bonus associated with this because of the ADU and asked the size of the main house. Stuart Lusk, applicant responded that they are not requesting a bonus and the main house is 3132 FAR, 5000sqft. Garton asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions of approval. Lusk stated that he did. Nevins said the garage is set back far enough off of Ute Avenue that there will be adequate space to park two cars in the driveway and with the current configuration of the proposed house there is adequate off street parking to accommodate both the single-family residence and the ADU. There were no public comments. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for the accessory dwelling unit of approximately 410sqft. at 971 Ute Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a) verify with the Housing Office that the net livable area of the accessory dwelling unit is a minimum of three hundred-forty (340) square feet; b) verify with the Housing Office that the unit will be built with a kitchen having a minimum of a two- burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; c) upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 and provide proof of recordation to the Community Development Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory dwelling unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, the unit shall be rented for periods of six (6) months or longer; d) clearly identify the accessory dwelling unit on building permit plans as a separate studio unit having a private, exterior entrance and being in compliance with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements; e) provide a drainage plan to confirm that the historic surface run-off shall be maintained on-site; f) submit a landscape plan, preserving the existing willow if possible, to the Park's Department for review; g) apply for a tree removal permit two (2) weeks prior to the issuance of a building permit if the existing willow (8" diameter multi-stemmed) spruce (8-1/2" diameter), and/or two (2) aspen trees (8' diameter) are removed. The required mitigation for the removal of any of these trees shall be as per Section 15.04.450 of the municipal code. 2) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the accessory dwelling unit to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 3) The applicant shall consult with various City departments in regards to the following: a) City engineering for design considerations and any development within public rights-of-way; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 b) Parks department for tree removal, landscaping, and vegetative species; c) City streets department for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way. 4) Any new surface utility needs including pedestals must be installed on-site. 5) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 6) All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other condition. 7) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the accessory dwelling unit to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Tygre asked about the location of the pathway. Lusk responded that there will be an entry path about 8' from the house that will act as an entry area. Lusk said if parked in front of the garage there would be two steps up to the entry walk of the main house and back down two steps to the ADU walk and then down the side of the house. Garton asked what is the intention for this ADU. Lusk said he has set it up as a rental, but he does not know what the owners intend. Tygre commented that the architect did a good job with what limitations he had to work with, however she would like to see bigger ADU's than this. Tygre said it bothers her that in this particular house, the whirlpool room is bigger than the ADU. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 Smuggler Affordable Housing / Conceptual PUD Suzanne Wolff, Staff stated that the applicants are proposing a 100% affordable housing project in William's Addition located at the corner of South and Spruce Streets. Wolff said they are proposing 15 deed-restricted affordable units, 14 of which are one (1) bedroom and one two (2) bedroom unit, the property is currently zoned R-6, the applicants are requesting conceptual PUD approval and approval to rezone the property to the AH1/PUD an affordable housing district. Wolff said the intent of rezoning to AH1/PUD is to create residences for permanent residents of the city, in Staffs opinion the proposal complies with all rezoning requirements in the code, it is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, Staff feels that it is compatible with the neighborhood because Staff sees the neighborhood as bigger than the William's Addition and includes the Smuggler neighborhood. Staff feels it is compatible with the land use character and scale in that neighborhood and sees it as a buffer lot between the William's Addition, Smuggler trailer park, Centennial, and Hunter Creek, at this time it does not appear that this would create unacceptable traffic generation because the applicant is proposing mostly one bedroom units. Wolff stated that Staff is concerned with the 5' setback on the North side, the height of the structure does comply with the 25' height requirement in the R-6 zone district, Staff was also concerned with the distance between the buildings and that the open space would not be usable to the residents of this project. Staff liked the height of the buildings, but felt that seven structures was too many for this property and the applicant should look at reducing the number of structures. Wolff also said that Staff liked the small scale of the structures, and that the applicant is required to provide 16 off-street parking spaces for these units, and she recommends that parking not be stacked. Staff recommended that the applicant revise the site plan to reflect some of Staffs concerns, minimize the impacts on the Northern property boundary, consolidate the units into fewer buildings, orient the buildings towards the public streets, provide a minimum of 15 off-street spaces without stacking, create more usable space, increase the distance between buildings and minimize the impacts along Race St. Hunt asked if Staff considers the alley, Race Street. Wolff responded that it is a platted alley and she talked with Engineering about this street vs. alley and they said it has been treated as an alley, if it was to be considered a street they would widen the right-of-way to 40ft., it is currently 20ft. Hunt stated that his concern is the parking on the "alley" which over time, in the William's Addition, has become a frontage street. Ted Guy, applicant said they had taken Staffs concerns to heart, met with the Board of Directors at Smuggler mobile home park, and had discussions with the Housing Authority. Guy stated that after discussions with the Housing Authority 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 they have reduced the size of the one bedrooms from 700sqft. to approx. 575sqft. and the two bedroom unit went from 900sqft. down to 850sqft. Guy said they now have thirteen parking spaces and thirteen units, there is driveway space that can be used for short term, stacked parking on-site, the reduction increased the usable open space significantly, the home owners at the Smuggler trailer park expressed some concern about how this neighborhood works with the kids. Guy said they contacted a traffic engineer who recommended road improvements in this area, they propose major changes to make Gibson become the main street and South becomes a secondary street, another concern is density. Guy requested that P&Z consider tabling this to a public hearing and asked to go back to the two step rather than the four step process. Michaelson stated that the code only allows the Community Development Director to decide if the application could move from a four step to a two step process, however P&Z can make a recommendation. Garton stated that because tonight is a conceptual hearing, not a public hearing, on advice from our Assistant City Attorney, we can take technical questions only. Diane Rutgers, public, said she has lived on the corner for 21 years and is confused as to why the traffic will not impact the area when William's Ranch hasn't been finished and we do not know the affect traffic will have. Chuck Roth, Engineering, did a traffic study 2 years ago and reported 3870 trips in our neighborhood, per day, per car. Rutgers asked how the applicant can consider that thirteen people will only have thirteen cars. Guy responded that he is providing the number of parking places required by ordinance 30. John Busch, public, asked what the applicant defined as the "neighborhood". Guy responded it is the Smuggler area. David Guthrie, applicant stated that you (the public) define the neighborhood differently, what he heard from Staff was it is not just the William's Addition. Guthrie stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 29 years as a caretaker for a house on Willoughby Way and he rides his bike or walks up Smuggler Mountain. Hunt said he was on P&Z when the William's Addition was annexed to the City and he considers the William's Addition a neighborhood, it is not the Smuggler neighborhood because they are specifically different than the surrounding neighborhoods. Hunt said he thinks it is a beautiful project but it's in the wrong PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 place and he feels it is inappropriate to only ask technical questions at this point because this is the conceptual level. Hoefer said that the way the process is set up the public will have their comments before City Council and when it comes back to P&Z they can make their comments at that time, they have two opportunities to discuss the merits, at this time it is simply a conceptual and Garton does not have to allow any public input at this time, including technical questions. Garton explained that the four step process evolved because City Council are the elected officials, they should here whether the project is appropriate or not, Planning & Zoning is an advisory board appointed at the leisure of the Council to review whether a project fits the Land Use Code. Ward Houenstein, public asked how can this area be rezoned when this project is not "in keeping with the neighborhood". Bob Zupancis, public asked how the traffic will affect Race Street and he feels the applicant needs to address the use of the alley (Race Street). Guy responded that the alley will be widened the entire length of the property and the traffic from other projects should not impact the Street. Guy said they have designed a project that will contain approximately the same mass and bulk as it would if it was developed as free market and we are developing this far less than the maximum density allowed by affordable housing. Zupancis, public said there is no parking in the area, what happens when these people throw a party, where will these cars park. Guy said they have five overflow spaces on-site, along with mass transit. Guy stated that the technical requirements of the code do not make that a problem for any of us and that he has gone beyond the requirements of the code. Brent Gardner Smith, public asked how much the one bedroom units will be. Guy said that current negotiations with the Housing Authority would put them in the $130,000 to $140,000 range, there may be a couple of one bedrooms around $110,000. Buettow asked if the definition of a neighborhood is constrained by the fact that this is a legal subdivision, the William's Addition. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 Wolff responded that the Neighborhood Character Guidelines used the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood. Hoefer said that would be the definition. Michaelson said the definition in the code is "a neighborhood means the area adjacent to or surrounding existing proposed development characterized by common use or uses, density, style and age of structures and environmental characteristics". Michaelson said that definition is consistent with what was used in the neighborhood guidelines. Hunt said he was a member of the Aspen Area Community Plan proceedings and the thought during those proceedings is yes we want affordable housing but dispersed throughout the city and a comment from that was that the Smuggler neighborhood is already maxed out. Stephanie Costello, public asked why if this is to intermingle with the rest of the neighborhood, was the word "buffer" used. Wolff said Staff saw this lot as being very impacted by the traffic that goes by, it relates to the William's Addition but it also relates beyond that to Smuggler to other developments in the area and to the intersection. Wolff said it would be different if it was a lot in the middle of the William' s Addition. Staff saw this as an area in transition (from one zone to the other zone) on the edge of the R-6 Zone and next to other zone districts. Charlie Tarver, public asked what is the maximum density allowed under the current zoning. Guy said the North lot can have a duplex with two ADU' s, the South lot would have a single family house with an ADU, garages are exempt if accessed off the alley and they could have up to 8600sqft. of allowable FAR. Tarver asked if the exempt numbers were real numbers. Guy responded they get built. Tarver asked how many bedrooms in the units. Guy said they are currently proposing 14, one less than the free market scenario. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt said that what has legally been called an alley, has in effect operated as a frontage street for most of the residents in the area. Hunt feels it is inappropriate to 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 put all the parking fronting on the street. Hunt also said the project does not appear compatible with the William's Addition neighborhood and if the Commission does consider this the Smuggler neighborhood, it further disqualifies itself because it will put density where the AACP wanted it dispersed. Tygre stated that it is an improvement over the previous plan, and she feels the project should be separated into the various components of the conceptual plan; 1) having to do with the rezoning; and 2) having to do with the PUD, which is the actual physical layout of the plan. Tygre said the Commission should consider the criteria for rezoning for a project, and that the physical plan, controlled by the PUD, is a separate issue and should be commented on separately. Tygre suggested that the Commission should do this procedurally and take them as separate issues. Buettow said that he would like to look at the neighborhood definitions more carefully and that a little more thought given towards what this needs to be or rightfully should be. Garton said her concern is the added traffic and she is very interested in seeing a detailed plan because the design could give the feeling of individual homes, or it could look like one big apartment complex, which is very difficult for a residential neighborhood to absorb. Garton said it is important for us to see that it is well done, there is enough open space, and if the buildings seem minimal, and she stated that this is a sensitive parcel, if it isn't done right it will change the neighborhood drastically. Garton said she is in favor of what the AACP says about mixing affordable housing in residential areas, however, she does know what this area has taken, and guaranteed that the Commission would look very, very hard at this. MOTION: Tygre moved that the Conceptual PUD Plan and the rezoning from R-6 to AH1/PUD for the Smuggler Affordable Housing project be tabled to May 7, 1996. Seconded by Buettow. Motion carries 3-1, with Garton, Tygre and Buettow voting yes and Hunt voted no. Waterplace Conceptual PUD Steve Buettow stepped down for this project due to a conflict of interest. Michaelson said this is a public meeting for conceptual SPA review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project, this project has been before P&Z in various configurations since early 1995, in addition there have been several work sessions with both City Council and P&Z, and the applicant has integrated all those concerns into their current application. Michaelson said the 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 proposal calls for 22 full5; deed-restricted units in addition to renovating one existing unit totaling 23, he said 6 units will be in a single-family detached configuration, and 17 units will be in a townhome configuration. Michaelson noted that with some of the infrastructure changes, particularly the road, the waterline, and loss of storage space, the scope of the project should include some issues regarding future needs of the water treatment facility, including, expansion of raw water storage, expansion of several office buildings, and expansion of a chlorine storage building, in addition when the building envelopes were moved around we found a lot of storage and all of those storage needs have been included in the water treatment plant expansion. Staff has noted the significant changes that have occurred with the project since the first submittal in March of 85, including the elimination a fourplex that was previously proposed adjacent to Castle Ridge, is now dedicated open space, the units on the bluff south of Castle Ridge have been pushed back, the proportion of the single-family detached units have been dropped in favor of more affordable smaller attached units, the design has taken on more of pedestrian tone, the parking has been isolated on the east side of Doolittle, the density has been increased from 16 units to 23, the project has been designed in greenspace orientation minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic, and maximizing solar exposure using energy efficient design and construction. Michaelson said Doolittle road now, for the first time, meets city standards in terms of curve radius as well as lane width. Michaelson stated that Housing did approve of the net livable sizes and the category mix, the Engineering Dept. has been involved with the project and have no comments at the conceptual level, and Environmental Health supports the project, Staff notes that the project meets the criteria in terms of density, height and bulk, utilities are in place, the applicant has plans for the realignment and widening of Doolittle, in addition the applicant has submitted a traffic engineering report that summarized improvements for the lower Castle Creek and the Maroon Creek intersection, there is very specific criteria that deals with employing land use techniques that preserve viewplanes, avoid adverse environmental impacts, provide open space and trails, and staff feels the applicant has addressed all those concerns. Staff is recommending approval of the plan at the concept level with conditions. David Hauter, Staff said they are waiting for the phase II audit to be completed once the snow is gone and will it be done before the final. Hauter said the project started out in the Engineering department and is now being presented through the Manager's department. Tygre asked what traffic calming measures mean. Michaelson responded that the opposite of traffic calming would be wide lanes from 10 - 14ft. in other words people have a perceived lane width that encourages them to speed up, typical 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 traffic calming includes bulbing out intersections, with the idea that as a vehicle gets closer to an intersection it narrows and instinctively they slow down. Garton asked if, in phase II of the environmental audit, the chlorine evacuation will be addressed. Michaelson said his understanding is that the applicant recognizes the hazard is there, but by providing 1) housing for emergency response people up there and; 2) by incorporating the chlorine response building at the end of the parking lot, the emergencies would be responded to quicker, as the emergency personnel will not be coming from Carbondale. Garton said some of the homeowners at Castle Ridge were unaware there is a chlorine hazard and she would like to see the emergency plan available to the other homeowners associations. Hauter stated that the nature of chlorine is that it can be very toxic, the probability of there being a problem is low. Hauter said in the event of a leak it could be a very serious situation, it is the water treatment plants responsibility and they have not shown their final plan as to how they will handle that hazard. Jay Hammond, representing Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer, said part of this application among the improvements in the upper plant area, is an expansion of the chlorine building itself, the purpose of that expansion is to add a "chlorine scrubber", which is a unit that will remove and counter the effect of the chlorine if there is a spill within the structure. Hunt asked if it is gaseous chlorine, in which case the greatest danger would be knocking a valve off of a bottle or small leaks, as far as how much chlorine is emitted. Hammond said it is gaseous, and Hauter said the number of bottles allowed at the plant is limited. Hunt asked if an ammonia wash could control the chlorine or is that what the scrubber does. Hammond said the scrubber uses another form of a hard chemical reactant that neutralizes the chlorine and routes the chlorine through the scrubber. Bill Brunworth, public manages the employee housing for Mountain Oaks. Brunworth said he is very concerned as he has never heard the threat of chlorine gas nor has he heard of a potential evacuation. Brunworth said the comments of road improvements were vague, what will the improvements look like or what they will be. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 Garton said that at the final public hearing for the SPA, they will have detailed drawings, with pictures of what the cuts look like and how they will be vegetated. Brunworth, asked if anyone had reviewed how future expansion of the water treatment facility will change traffic in the neighborhood. Brunworth also asked how big the expansion will be in the future, what if a housing project is approved and then we find that we have a mammoth expansion. Garton responded that there will be no more trucks and it should stay at the present employee levels. Michaelson stated the representations made are no net new employees at the water plant, by this expansion. Hammond stated his understanding is that the water treatment plants capability for processing water is adequate for a number of years, in terms of employees. Hammond said their biggest problem right now is the reservoir is too small, they need some storage capacity to consolidate their operation. Brunworth asked how many seasons of heavy construction are down the road, presumably the housing will be accomplished in one season, how many years will the expansions take. Hauter said there is a construction plan for everything being presented now, with the exception of the reservoir expansion, and that is a few years out. Hauter said that the construction phasing is infrastructure first, Doolittle Road, and set the water plant up with new office space so they can consolidate, then some home construction this fall. Tygre commented that in other PUD's construction staging was part of the final PUD and it was addressed in quite a bit of detail, and it should be required of this particular project as well. Steve Barwick, Assistant City Manager stated that Councilmember Max Marolt was also concerned that we may be taking up potential expansion area for the plant. Barwick said that according to Phil Overeynder, Staff, the amount of raw water that is available to the community, in total, can be more than handled by the existing treatment facility, and he doesn't foresee now or ever the need for a major expansion. Hammond said that a lot of the construction at the plant site, at this time, is going to be grading work to create flat platforms for outdoor storage of equipment, there is an addition of one storage building, a lot of it is fairly simplistic there is no plan for heavy construction to expand the treatment facilities. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to approve Conceptual SPA Approval for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project with the following conditions: 1) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2) The applicant shall provide at final SPA review a detailed plan for retaining and revegetating the Doolittle Road cuts, disturbed areas or easements, and building envelopes. Such a plan shall include section details, plant species list and construction and planting schedules. 3) The trail alignment shall be staked in the field for review by Staff and the Commission at the time of Final SPA review. The trail alignment must avoid as much existing vegetation as possible. Plans submitted as Final SPA review shall include proposed surface type and width. A plan for snowplowing and maintenance must also be provided for review. 4) In no case shall the new residential structures be washed with light from any exterior light fixtures. Additional lighting needs for the trail and roadway must be specified at the time of Final SPA review. 5) Residents from adjacent residential areas should be included in planning and design of the proposed park area. At the time of Final SPA review, the applicant shall be prepared to address what level of participation is envisioned for improvements to the park area. 6) The Phase II Environmental Audit must be included in the Final SPA submittal. 7) Specific sinage, speed limits, pedestrian treatments and potential traffic calming measures to address the mix of traffic on Doolittle Road shall be approved by the City engineer and submitted at the time of Final SPA review. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 8) The applicant shall submit elevations of all water treatment plant structures proposed for improvements at the time of Final SPA review. These elevations should be sufficient for Staff and the commission to review the proposed improvements in the context of potential visual impact from proposed and existing development. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. (Buettow stepped down) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District/Stream Margin Review Michaelson said the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), is requesting approval for two grade modification drop structures to protect two crossings of a 12" sewer line in the Roaring Fork River, they are not replacing the line they are only protecting it. Michaelson stated that the Oklahoma Flats structure downstream from the pedestrian bridge washed out in 1995, exposing a sewer point, by standards of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Division of Wildlife, these structures are supposed to withstand a 200 year event, the applicant proposes to also construct a permanent drop structure approximately 150ft. above the Neale Street bridge. Michaelson noted that Allan Czencush of the Division of Wildlife will supervise the project, in addition there is approval from the Corp of Engineers. Michaelson also said the applicant will revegetate as required in his 404 permit, the approval letter from Allan Czencush, and all the nation and statewide permits are in place. Garton asked if the applicant will be dredging from the river bottom or will the material be brought in. Thomas Bracewell, representing the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District stated that the Army Corp of Engineers will not allow anything new in the riverbed without a permit. Bracewell said that the material that will be removed to put the rocks in will be used to bed the pipe, he stated that the first event will usually fill that in. Buettow asked if the shallow lake in Herron Park could be scooped out and the channel restored while the pipes are under repair. Rebecca Schickling, Staff responded that they will most likely be covered under a nationwide permit as restoration of the original area. Schickling said last year the 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 Oklahoma Flats bridge came very close to washing out because of the high water and we are looking to replace that bridge. Hunt asked if an analysis was done to see if the river will flood upstream of the structure and will it change the riverbanks. Bracewell said that the water can not be raised 100fi. upstream or downstream. Michaelson stated that the HEC II model takes links of the river, makes a bank assumption, a topography assumption and an assumption of what the bottom of the river is like, the computer model looks at the current flood plane and then enters the work to be done, the model will define any upstream and downstream changes. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve a stream margin review for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, with the following conditions: 1) All representations of the application are considered conditions of approval. 2) The project must be consistent with the 404 permit and recommendations by the Division of Wildlife. 3) Any conditions recommended by Parks and Engineering are considered conditions of approval. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk MINUTES ............................................................................................................... 1 971 Ute Avenue / Conditional Use .......................................................................... 1 Smuggler Affbrdable Housing / Conceptual PUD ................................................... 5 Waterplace Conceptual ? UD .................................................................................. 9 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District/Stream Margin Review ............................ 14 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16~ 1996 16