Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19981006ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chairwoman, opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Bob Blaich, Steve Buettow, Ron Erickson, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Tim Semrau and Jasmine Tygre were present. Sara Garton was excused. City Staff in attendance were: Chris Bendon, Amy Guthrie and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked if the AutoTech parking problems would be resolved with the cars parked on the streets and into the public right-of-way. Roger Hunt said that the day Amy Margerum went by, cars were not a problem. Erickson said they have been a problem every day since. Julie Ann Woods stated that part of that property was city owned. Hunt responded to Engineering's statement that regular sized cars could angle park across from the ISIS, but any longer vehicles would not fit with two 10' lanes. He said signs and a line indicating the center of the road were needed. Tim Mooney stated the middle part of that block, across from the ISIS, was restricted to Fire Department parking; valet parking could parallel park because of the obvious difference in parking. Mooney questioned the sun-setting of the LP district. Woods replied there was one more lodge in November to come forward; council will consider in a worksession on 10/19/98 for some kind of re-working small lodges in the future. Woods noted Bob Blaich should speak to Steve Barwick on the reflective pipes at Waterplace. Blaich stated they were the vent pipes. He complimented the project. Woods commented the construction parking problem was brought up at a staff meeting and it was decided that the AACP transportation committee would take on the problem as part of the AACP update. The following information items were given: The annual Boards and Commissions Wheeler party will be 12/03/98. There will be a Sensible Growth Symposium on 10/17/98 in Carbondale. There was a staff effectiveness survey to be returned to Julie Ann. There will be a Tipple GMQS meeting at the Library next Tuesday, 10/13/98. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 No counsel was present at tonight's meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Tim Semrau stated that he had a conflict on 735 West Bleeker because he had been approached by the owner for purchase. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 1998. Tim Semrau second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.36 - SECURITY SIGNS MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Section 26.36 code amendment, due to staff request to 11/03/98. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.28 - SC1 Chris Bendon provided the public notice for this code amendment. He gave the summary of the definitions of the amendment. Roger Hunt asked if the definitions could be brought to City Council as code definitions not specific only to the SCI zone district. The commission agreed. No public comment. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval of this amendment to City Council for the amendments to Definitions, Section 26.04.100, as described herein. Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.92 of the Municipal Code, Section 26.04.100 of the Municipal Code, as set forth in Section 2 below. Section 2: Recommended amendments to Definitions. Underline indicates language to be added. StrH;c thru indicates language to be removed. Plain font represents language to be unaltered. Artist Studio: is a fine arts workshop of a painter, sculptor, potter, weaver, carver, photographer, or other similar art that requires artistic skill, and not aenerallv utilitarian, related to personal adornment, receiving the public, or engaging in retail sales. Architect Studio: A workshop primarily devoted to the design of buildings. Design Studio: A workshop primarily devoted to the design or representation of built form, products, or 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 graphic arts. Consignment Retail Establishment: A retail establishment in which the operator sells second hand goods as a third party agent between the buyer and seller. Animal Boarding Facility: An establishment which houses animals overnight or over an extended period of time. Animal Grooming Establishment: An establishment principally engaged in grooming animals in which overnight boarding is prohibited. Veterinary Clinic: A facility maintained by or for the use of a licensed veterinarian in the care and treatment of animals wherein overnight care is prohibited except when necessary for medical purposes. building or facility used for the collection and preparation of recyclable material for efficient shipment. Brewery: A facility for the production and packaging of alcoholic malt beverages for distribution which does not generally receive the public or engage in retail sales. Coffee Roasting Facility: A facility for the processing and packaging of coffee beans for distribution which does not generally receive the public or engage in retail sales. Commercial Kitchen: means a commercial establishment producing or wholesaling prepared food items in which and in P&Z Resolution 98-28. Tim Semrau second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 126 PARK AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE - ADU and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chair, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. Chris Bendon, staff, stated the applicant did not have the notary signature part of the proof of notice. The discussion included no legal counsel, noticing requirements, hearing staff presentation, work sessions and continuing the public hearing to a date certain. This hearing was placed at the end of the agenda as a worksession and then changed as per the motions. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing until November 17, 1998 subject to receiving proof of notice on 10/07/98. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 7-0. THIS MOTION WAS RE-CONSIDERED TO: Roger Hunt moved to re-consider the public hearing at the end of the agenda tonight. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 7-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 The applicant's representative, David Muckenhirn, stated that he could not sign the notice or take the notice down until today, therefore it couldn't be notarized. Tygre explained that public hearings have strict rules and notarized proof of notification was required in order to conduct public hearings. She said that was the reason for a work session. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to bring 126 Park Avenue back to the table. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 6-0. At 5:35 p.m. the public hearing resumed with proper notification provided. Bendon explained the proposal was a duplex at 126 Park Avenue with 2 ADUs. He said the property was a non-conforming lot approximately 4900 sf in the R-6 zone with an existing duplex. Bendon noted with scrape and replace, zoning allows non- conformities and this property provides for challenging designs. He said he has worked with the applicant and it was not there yet. It was a problematic small site with too much being placed upon it. Bendon noted the applicant proposed a 2 car, a 1 car garage, plus another space for the residences; one for each ADU was required; a total of 6 parking spaces on site. Bendon stated what further complicated the project were requests for variances from the design standards; windows in the 9'-12' no window zone; one story front element (20% width of the facade); garage placement (10' further back from the front facade); inflection (the step-down in height). He said this probably was not ready for a public hearing because the design was not complete and this probably was not the application that could work well on this site. Tygre stated the applicant had the choice at this time to table and continue or have P&Z hear the case tonight. Tim Mooney stated that if this application was denied tonight, then the applicant would have to re-apply; new fees would be incurred. He said if they wanted to go forward, there was risk involved, otherwise ask for a continuance now. The commissioners collectively felt there was enough information based upon the small amount of information provided, to make a decision tonight if the applicant decided to proceed. R.J. Adair, applicant, asked to be able to make a presentation tonight. He stated that he has owned the property for over 10 years and lived in the small unit. He stated that the ADUs would be rented to people who need the units. Adair said his long term goal was to retire in this valley. He hoped to improve the property with input and direction from the commission to meet the requirements. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 Muckenhim thanked the commission for allowing them the opportunity to present the plans and designs, 4th generation now. He stated this might be presented a little early but it was challenging because of the site. He asked how important were the items relative to this site and how receptive was the commission in granting variances in these areas. Muckenhim utilized colored bluelines to illustrate unit 1 with 3 bedrooms plus an ADU in the basement; unit 2 had 3 bedroom plus an ADU in the basement. He said the building envelope was 14' where the garage was to be placed and the curb requirements prevent parking in another place. He noted there were 5 parking places on the property and were just shy of the 6th. Muckenhirn asked the commissioners if they preferred the parking spot on the street or to eliminate the ADU. He asked for feed back on priorities. Adair added there was no alley in this area and the property next door was elevated by probably 10'. Muckenhim said they thought the inflection would not be a design standard at this time, and could not see how the inflection would come into play on the one side with the house next door raised so far above them. He said only with strict enforcement of the standard would it come into play. He noted the existing was a 2 story building and the next door duplex wanted to go to 2 stories therefore asked for relief from those considerations. Muckenhim stated a roof could be placed over the stairs if the commission so desired. He said the decks could be used to satisfy the 1 story element for 20%. He said the last element was the volume variance which was implemented for applications other than this, to eliminate large windows on the front facade. He asked the commission for feedback. Tygre explained the role of the commission was not to give direction but to either approve or disapprove the submission. Muckenhim said then they would ask for a variance for parking on the second ADU or take it out, if the commission did not want to grant. Tygre stated that it was not an either or situation but yes or no on what was presented and to make it clear to the applicant that they cannot do that. Muckenhim replied that they were looking for a work session but since the schedule was so far out, they thought this would be better. Tygre clarified if the parking for the second ADU was not granted, then it was not granted there was no option to go to another plan. Woods noted there was no request for a variance on parking. Bendon concurred that the notice was for the ADU and parking did not have a separate hearing. Tygre stated as part of the ADU review, parking could be waived. Bendon said it was nice to have applicants that want to use the ADUs in the way they were expected to be used, but it did not bypass the community and 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 neighborhood concerns with residential design standards, site planning and parking. He said this project would have been appropriate for a work session and not a public hearing at this point. He stated the recommendation was still the same, to continue the public hearing. Tygre requested questions from the commissioners. Steve Buettow asked if there were 3 driveways across the front shown on the site plan; wasn't there a 20' maximum curb cut limitation. Muckenhirn stated they meant to show 2 driveways and engineering did not get back to them yet. Bendon asked the commission to approve the second curb cut from engineering. Tim Mooney asked if 8,000 square feet was needed for a duplex lot in the zone district. Bendon said it was 9,000 sf for a duplex lot. Mooney said the lot size was less than half the size required for 2 dwelling units and to ask for 4 variances, which would affect the entire neighborhood, was too much. He asked what the original non-conformity was; not having the 9,000 sf lot for a duplex. Bob Blaich questioned how the snow would be dealt with into the ADU walkways. He said the drawings did not show the roof. Muckenhim said the one story shed roof would protect the walkway but the drawings did not show it. Blaich noted it was difficult to evaluate the project from the drawings. Tim Semrau asked if street facing porches were required as part of ordinance 30. Bendon replied street facing entrances were required and both units had them. No public comment. Roger Hunt shared Mooney's problems with the project. He said the ADUs impacted the small parcel and that was very problematic. He said as it was designed now, he could not vote in favor of the project. Hunt stated as much as he favored ADUs and appreciated the fact the owner wanted to place the ADUs; there needed to be an alternative way to proceed with the project. Ron Erickson stated that he would have a problem approving this if it were a single family house with an ADU on this small lot. Semrau stated there needed to be a more creative solutions; there were too many problems. Muckenhim asked for comments on the 2 garages facing the street. Blaich stated that there were many problems and staff could help work them out and bring it back to P&Z. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 Buettow stated the windows were not the problem but the garage placement was poor; it dominates the front of the parcel. He said generally a block elevation was requested to see how it fits into the rest of the neighborhood. Muckenhirn provided a panorama photo. Tygre shared the concerns of the size of the lot with the size of the structure. She credited the applicant in trying to place 2 smaller ADUs on this parcel. Tygre said having greater density within the city limits where the transportation problems were not as great was preferred. She favored having 2 smaller ADUs rather than 1 larger one; it provides more housing opportunities. Tygre suggested the applicant table and work with staff. Muckenhim stated that was the best option. Adair said the issues of the lot size confused him because he needed clarity beginning with following the process replacing a duplex with a duplex and not having financing to do anything but a duplex. Bendon noted the commission stated the desire to do away with non-conformities and not extending them for re-development. He said but right now the non- conformities can be extended but ADUs were still conditional use. Bendon stated the duplex existed on a lot too small which reinforced the importance for impact mitigation on the surrounding property owners, residential design standards and parking requirements. Erickson stated wanting to maximize the FAR on a lot this size and keep to the code was one way to do a project, but when you go over that area and want more, then you are subject to scrutiny. Mooney said that in all fairness to constructive criticism; two 3 bedroom units would restrict the quality of life for the people living in the units. He noted the doorways were minimal and there was not room to walk around the beds in the bedrooms; fundamentally maybe it should be a one bedroom with an ADU. He said raising the quality and reducing the quantity, may allow the one story elements and required parking to be accomplished. Mooney stated for 8 people to be forced to live in 3200 sfjust doesn't fit on a 4900 sf lot. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on 126 Park Avenue conditional use for 2 ADUs and residential design standard variances to 12/01/98. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 7-0. Muckenhim felt there were two major design challenges; the street facing garage and the inflection. He said an ADU could be eliminated along with the parking. He requested feedback on that garage design. Tygre stated that it was clear the 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 commission would not grant the variances; if more input would be needed from the commission, then a work session should be scheduled. Blaich reiterated that staff would be helpful. Buettow encouraged one driveway and stated the 5 standards for garages: offthe alley, 10' back from the front of the building, facing the side (not the street), covered in the front, not front facing. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.20.30, 26.52 and 26.?2, HISTORIC PRESERVATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. Amy Guthrie, staff, stated the proof was published in the newspaper and would bring a copy to the deputy city clerk prior to the end of the meeting. This was done. Guthrie explained the historic and landmark public hearing process had conceptual and final review which allowed for neighborhood and public input. She said there was a distinction in the preservation process that existed and needed to be corrected. Properties that were historic but not landmark, on the historic inventory, have a much different process. Generally their review consisted of a partial demolition without a public hearing, no requirement to review neighborhood compatibility which doesn't work. Guthrie stated these were the reasons for the code amendment before the commission. She apologized for the length of the amendment, but this followed the code eliminating the distinction between landmarks and non-landmarks. Now any property with historic significance will go through the same process. Guthrie noted if this was approved it would be effective immediately; if council did not overturn the approval. Ron Erickson asked when the number of properties changed. Julie Ann Woods stated the inventory was updated every five years. Guthrie explained that the property goes through HPC and P&Z public hearings and then to City Council to be adopted by ordinance. Roger Hunt expressed concern with the demolition standards, in particular that non- conformities had the ability to rebuild in setbacks. He questioned allowing the use of historic designation for non-conformities of an essentially new non-historic building. Guthrie responded that was not specific to historic structures but the code stated a building could be demolished and re-built with the same non-conformities within a year. Guthrie said that issue was not addressed. Hunt stated the problem 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 was with voluntary demolition not involuntary demolition with continuation of a non-conformity. He asked if this would be addressed in the demolition code. Woods replied that would be addressed in the up-date of the land use code scheduled for the 1999 work program. She said that staff had recognized this problem showing the need for update of the code. Tygre asked if the voluntary demolition not continuing a non-conformity could be added onto this code amendment. Woods replied it could not because of noticing and that change would affect all zone districts. She said it would be proper to handle the change in the entire code amendment. Tim Semrau inquired about the feedback from the property owners. Guthrie answered there was no feedback from the public. She said the amendment was discussed at the symposium and HPC. Woods stated that as a result of the symposium, the inventory would be reviewed in a more comprehensive way. Hunt supported what Tygre said and since historic structures were more likely to have non-conformities, why not add the language now. Guthrie stated there was an urgency to this code amendment because there were 2 HPC cases under the partial demolition review standards which were a problem on every project. She said it would be better to bring forward the non-conformities section as a code amendment separately from the HP code amendments. Bob Blaich stated that he would be in favor of that with fast action pending. Woods suggested P&Z move on this amendment now and request staff to bring forward a code amendment on the non- conformities. Tim Mooney stated concern also about the code amendments. He said as the definition for historic structure was expanded, considering ski era buildings as historic, for example added to the possible exemptions to be considered. He said the entire incentive program should be reviewed. Guthrie stated there were copies of the symposium summaries available for anyone who wanted them. It was a wholesale look at the program. Woods stated they were looking at entire changes. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed code amendments Section 26.20.30, 26.52 and 26.72 related to historic inventory properties, as described in "Exhibit B," of the memo provided from Amy Guthrie dated October 6, 1998, and incorporated into P&Z Resolution 98-30; 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 moved to request Council direct staff regarding the voluntary demolition with continuance of non-conformities and review the incentive program for historic properties. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 735 WEST BLEEKER - CONDITIONAL USE 2 - ADUs, SPECIAL REVIEW, LANDMARK Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chair, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. Amy Guthrie, staff, stated the notice was provided but the list was not. She said an HPC applicant was able to provide the notice the next day prior to 5 p.m. Tygre stated this was unfair and requirements had to apply equally to all applicants. The applicants, Drew Dolan and Rich Pasack stated the list was across the street at their office. Tygre asked the applicants to get the list prior to proceeding with the public hearing. Tygre stated there needed to be a more appropriate way to deal with this problem of providing proof of notice at the meeting. Julie Anne Woods and Jackie Lothian discussed the problem and Woods stated this would be dealt with at the staff level prior to meetings and public hearings. The public hearing resumed at 6:40 with proper notice and lists meeting jurisdictional requirements. Guthrie stated this had similarities to the last hearing but not the same areas of concern. It was a historic property behind the Christian Science building with an existing historic miner's cottage. The existing cottage was approximately 1084 sf on an R-6 lot which had the potential to triple with an addition. Guthrie noted that was an inappropriate solution being over-scaled; the option of a duplex or 2 single family homes was a better solution as a conditional use. She said the original application had a duplex; HPC encouraged 2 detached units cutting down the scale. Guthrie stated there was no additional floor area permitted for this type of development. There was a required ADU in the basement of one unit and a requested voluntary ADU in the other unit. Guthrie requested waiving the 6th parking space; there was adequate parking on the streets in the area and in walking distance to down town. HPC recommended landmark designation to Council and staff requested P&Z also recommend approval 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 to Council. She said 2 standards must be met, but 3 were recommended along with 11 conditions of approval. Ron Erickson noted the square footage from the plans and dimensional requirements did not match; FAR at 3000 sf; plans at 3117 sf. Drew Dolan said the 3117 sfwas accurate. Guthrie responded that HPC discussions changed some of the plans. Erickson asked if the side yard setback was 1'8". Dolan affirmed; but the plans had been amended and the wall had been straightened and now a variance was not needed in this area. Guthrie stated in the R-6 zone, the set back was a 5' requirement. Erickson asked if the new structure (unit 2) could be designed so that it did not require a rear yard setback. He noted that potentially there could be 10 bedrooms in the 2 structures (including the ADUs and media rooms). Guthrie responded that HPC's perview was the rear yard setback and now there were only 2 parking spaces required for each unit, not a bedroom count. Bob Blaich inquired about the doors or walls between the ADUs and the main residence media rooms. Dolan replied there were doors to enhance the ADUs access to the laundry with a locking door. Blaich explained the reason this was addressed was a door to a media room might be used as another bedroom rather than an ADU. Mooney asked if the applicant would consider a wall between the media room and add a stacked washer/dryer to keep the integrity of the ADUs separate. Dolan said that could be accomplished. Guthrie said that wasn't a housing requirement, only that the ADU have a separate entrance. Blaich and Mooney requested a wall as a condition as well as a representation. Steve Buettow inquired about the covered roof above the stairway access. Dolan replied there was one and the historic did not have a cover but would be snow- melted. Buettow asked if the windows in ADU #2 met required UBC. Dolan answered the over all glass and light wells would be increased to meet those requirements. Tygre inquired if the required ADU had mandatory occupancy. Guthrie replied both ADUs would come under the current code regulations which do not include mandatory occupancy. No public comments. Roger Hunt inquired as to the east side property line setback; large enough for a fireman with a hose to get around. Dolan replied it was 5' setback with about 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 1'10" between window-well and fence. He said there was a jog in the setback in the middle of the property to afford greater separation between the 2 buildings. Tygre stated that current owners or personalities were not part of the considerations, but the physical attributes of the buildings and land use. The conditions were re-numbered 1-11 from the community development memo dated 10/06/98 with the addition of a sentence on 5b. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the conditional use requests to place two (2) detached single-family residences and two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units on a single Historic Landmark Designated lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6, Medium-Density Residential zone district, to waive one (1) off-street parking space and to recommend landmark designation is hereby approved with the following conditions in Planning and Zoning Resolution #98-31: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends landmark designation finding that the structure is eligible for landmark status as it meets criteria B, D, and E. 2. The approvals contained herein shall be of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation is granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. The project must also receive final significant development approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the design and layout of the proposed development. 3. The approvals contained herein are fully contingent upon the applicants' receiving approval of the needed variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6, Medium-Density Residential zone district from the Historic Preservation Commission; the conditional use approval shall not create any nonconformities. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: a. Complete all tap permits through the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. b. Verify that the site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The applicant must also meet the other concerns of the Environmental Health Department as stated in "Exhibit B" of Amy Guthrie's memo dated October 6, 1998. c. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any trees that are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). 5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Office shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the following conditions of approval: a. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer, b. The unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private entrance and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in the principal residence; i.e. a mechanical room for the principal residence. There shall be no interior doors between the accessory dwelling units and the main houses, c. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. d. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 with 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines (Appendix Chapter 12, Division II, Section 1208) and natural light requirements. 6. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Install detached sidewalks of at least five (5) feet in width as recommended by the Engineering Department. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair shall be replaced and the applicant shall sign a curb and gutter agreement; b. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; said easements shall be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. c. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; and, d. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 7. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit. 8. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 9. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 10. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11. 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 shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Roll Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. Mooney commended staff, HPC, P&Z and the developers on a project that really works. Meeting adjourned 7'15 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................ 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 06, 1998 CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.36 - SECURITY SIGNS ........................................................................ 2 CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.28 - SC1 .................................................................................................. 2 126 PARK AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE - ADU AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ............. 3 CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.20.30, 26.52 AND 26.72, HISTORIC PRESERVATION ..................... 8 735 WEST BLEEKER - CONDITIONAL USE 2 - ADUS, SPECIAL REVIEW, LANDMARK ................... 10 14