Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000606ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Charles Vresilovic present. Steven Buettow was excused. City staff in attendance: Lee Novak, Housing; Amy Guthrie, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. MINUTES (04/04/00 & 04/28/00) MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes from April 4, 2000 and April 18, 2000. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 7-0. COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson inquired about the Post office right-of-way. David Hoefer noted that Nick Adeh, City Engineer was dealing with it. Tygre noted the amount of letters received regarding the DRACO project. Bob Blaich commented on the newspaper articles and the quotes that were not absolutely accurate. Blaich stated that he revisited the library and the reading areas were separate from where the DRACO building would be located. The balcony space racks were placed front of the windows; he said that Red Mountain was still visible if you stood right at the windows. Blaich inquired about the Apex Security Signage. David Hoefer answered that Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer, was trying to reach each homeowner in person and with a follow-up letter as an enforcement of the sign code. He noted that Apex has had well over a year to come into compliance. Tim Mooney asked for clarification on a classification restriction from renovation under HPC Code on the old panabodes. He asked if the owners of these dwellings would be informed and if any public comments would be accepted on their property. Amy Guthrie replied that every 5 years there was an HPC Inventory of historic site for compliance of any properties that should be added. She said that all buildings from the 1950's were being reviewed for the current inventory, not just panabodes. Guthrie noted that every panabode is not worthy of historic designation but there would be public hearings with HPC, P&Z and City Council. David Hoefer noted that the owners would be noticed. Mooney asked if it was the owner's choice to be historically listed. Guthrie replier5 that it was not. Mooney asked if it was considered a takings if the owners had to tear it down. Hoefer responded that it would not be considered a taking because there would sill be a viable use for the property. Hoefer stated that the law views 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 that when a property was purchased there was no expectation of financial improving that property. Hoefer noted that there were things that could effect the property value but Amy will point out that many things could effect these properties. Guthrie commented that there was a meeting on Thursday to review. Mooney inquired on the time period of the demolition permit. Guthrie replied that it was 6 month from the time of issuance with City Council. Blaich requested that a new chairman be voted upon at the next meeting. He stated that he would be willing to serve as chair for another year. Joyce Ohlson introduced Fred Jarman, the new planner in community Development from the University of Oregon. Chris Bendon provided schedules for in-fill housing and Civic center meetings. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie stated that the notice was in her office and she would deliver to David Hoefer Wednesday morning. Guthrie explained that the Nore Winter assisted in writing the design standards, which the Commission has felt were lacking in the past. The report also provides historical background, architectural styles, illustrations that could be added to the criteria for the Historic Guidelines. Tim Mooney asked if would be appropriate to actually review the document prior to voting on it. Guthrie replied that the document will not be in the Land Use Code but will be a reference item. City Council would be endorsing the process. Ron Erickson noted that this was just a "housekeeping" item for P&Z rather than an endorsement. Jasmine Tygre asked that there was a provision to be reviewed with the Land Use Code. Guthrie responded that not every item had to be reviewed through the process. Roger Hunt also noted discomfort in not reviewing the document prior to adoption. Hoefer responded that this was an internal administrative issue that existed. No public comments. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06, 200~] MOTION: Roger Hunt moved adopt Resolution #26, Series of 2000, recommending the amendment of Section 26.415.010 of the Municipal Land Use Code finding the criteria from have been met as follows: Development involving the inventory of historic sites and structures or development in an "H," Historic Overlay District. Unless determined to be exempt by the Community Development Director, any development involving the inventory of historic sites and structures or development in an "H." Historic Overlay District, shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," which are on file with the Community Development Department, and, as applicable, the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Vresilovic, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS REZONING (contd from 5/30) David Hoefer noted that this also was a continued public hearing and would be continued because there a section of the rezoning is still under discussion with staff and the applicant. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Aspen Highlands Rezoning to July 11, 2000 at the request of staff and the applicant. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS BASE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer requested notice for the public hearing. Notice was posted and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Nick Lelack, community development department, utilized maps to illustrate the site location. The areas of discussion would be block C (5 duplexes & 2 triplexes) & E (2 duplexes & 12 single family homes). Each unit would be limited to 3500 square feet excluding the basement level with a 28-foot height limitation. The yard and road setbacks were established within the building envelopes. Lelack stated that after extensive discussions with Lance Clark on the Pitkin County approvals, it was very clear that approvals stated the townhouses would never be detached into single family units. He said that currently on Block E there were 16 units (a triplex, duplex - 5 units were already built), but nothing has been built on Block C. Lelack stated one concerns is that the character of the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06, 2000 townhouses as duplexes or triplexes are a better match to the core of the base village than single family residences. Lelack stated the scaling is a nice transition. Lelack noted that fewer driveways would serve townhouses than single family residences and would allow more open space. Lelack said that changing the configuration would not be consistent with the approved PUD. Duane Romero, Aspen Highlands Project Manager, provided the approved densities and process position over the last 5 years. He explained the integrated effort of mixed use with retail, restaurant, affordable housing, free-market and tourist accommodations. Romero noted that the base core of the village was completed last year; he noted that buildings #5 and #3 (completed December 2001) would round out the village experience with retail and employee housing. Romero said that there were 31 free-market home sites that sit on each shoulder of the project. Glenn Horn, Planner, stated that the general submission included 16 townhouses one on each side of the village, but he said that they were not happy with the way that the massing turned out with the 5 townhouses that had been built on the Maroon side. Horn told the Commission that was why these two areas were re- designed to achieve a more comfortable detached townhouse configuration for the project. Ron Erickson asked how detailed the county review process was regarding the look of the buildings. Hem replied that was for the core of the village and that there was a very specific look of the buildings and footprint of the buildings. He said only design concepts of these free market units were shown. Hem reiterated that the plan established building envelopes and located driveways but there was design flexibility for the individual lot owner from the design guidelines. Horn noted the affordable units had a more comprehensive approach showing the facades. Horn said the townhouses were similar to the single-family approach, the county established a building envelope and left the design flexibility up to the developer with the understanding that they would be attached. Bill Poss, architect, stated that the townhouses had an overwhelming effect on the commercial core and out to the rural area because of the size. Poss said that moving them apart would break down the massing. Poss-said this redesign internalized the outside access points for the auto by having only 2 access points rather than 11 access points. The redesign would create a better neighborhood anE would give the units solar orientation throughout the units would also breakup the streetscape with interaction throughout the village in a pedestrian way. He said there would be trees planted along side the buildings with natural snow sloughing 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 200( on the sides of the buildings. Erickson noted that this was just Block C. Erickson asked if Block E had the same plan for detached units. Poss replied that it would, but with taller buildings. Gideon Kaufman, applicant attorney, noted the debate had to do with the density, numbers and size. He stated that the impacts remained the same but the aesthetic issue was the difference. Kanfman said they remain town_houses under Colorado Common Interest Act, 6 feet apart in some places. Kaufrnan said the redesign tries to enhance the village. Kan£man said this is a change in the PUD but the language was clear that the PUD could be modified for enhancement; that was their position, a better plan. Mooney asked if the land was commonly owned and the structures were separately owned. Kanfman said that the homeowners association would maintain the individuals would own the common areas and the building. Erickson inquired how the land was conveyed under the original plan and how it was proposed to be conveyed under this plan. Kaufman responded that it was general common element. Erickson asked for clarification; how was it different than triplex. Kaufman replied that the homeowners association would own the land underneath, the common element to everyone along with the general common areas and maintain in the triplex situation. Kaufman stated that in this particular concept, because the buildings were not connected, each owner owned the air space and the land underneath with the homeowners association still maintains the surrounding lands. He said the land underneath goes with the property. Erickson asked if there were then 2 associations, one for the common elements of that triplex and a second one for the common elements the association. Poss replied that it was one association, with set of common elements for the benefit and enjoyment of all the association members but then there was a limited common wall element set. Hoefer asked for clarification on the yard area; he inquired if the yard area was conveyed or was the yard area part of the common element. Poss replied there was a very small yard area for the current phase one, that current triplex. Kaufman noted that the homeowners association had the responsibility for maintaining all o5 the grounds including those grounds owned by the people. Erickson asked what were the proposed setbacks for the detached unit situation; various zoning had different setback requiremems. He stated since there was a mini-subdivision being designed, what exactly were the setbacks. Poss answered 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06~ 2000 that there were common spaces between the units that varied from 6 feet to 10 fee~ apart. Kaufman noted those dimensional requirements were part of the PUD process. Hunt stated that the impression from the drawings and the site visit were completely different. Poss agreed that it was different because the space in the center (from the drawings) was now changed to open up about 4% following the grade. Poss said this was the main auto and bus entrance and was meant to keep the pedestrians from the auto and bus traffic. Romero stated that this plan invited pedestrians back into this plan. Hunt noted that in the city there were side yards setbacks between individual residences, towrahomes or not, for fire protection; he asked how was that philosophy being dealt with at 6 feet between individual residences. Romero answered that the uniform building code required a building to be 5 feet from a property line and if the property line did not exist between 2 buildings then it would assume the property line to be dead center between the buildings. Romero said that in this case the 6 feet was roof to roof, the walls were at lease 10 feet apart in all cases..Poss clarified that was for fire protection, the separation of buildings; there were no property lines between the buildings. Poss said the property line was the perimeter of the project. Mooney asked for definition on the 31 single-family home sites; the differences and similarities. Kanfman responded that the 3 ! single families were truly single family sites; the entire lot was owned and maintained as one piece. Kaufraan said that this was a traditional town_home, the only difference was that it was not attached but still maintained as a condominium concept. Mooney asked if Exhibition Street was a city street or a developer-owned road. Poss responded that it was privately owned as per the conditions of the approval. Mooney asked if these 31 homes were part of the association. Kanfrnan replied that there was a master association that everyone was part of in the Village: the affordable housing, commercial space, the free-market residential, townhomes and the single-family residences. Kanfman stated that each separate group had their own association as any traditional subdivision. Kaufman noted that in the Village area there was vertical zoning, which allowed for different zoning in the same building. Hunt asked who would maintain the roads and who would maintain the driveways. Poss said that there was a metro-district that would be responsible for the true 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 common roads and the association would be responsible for clearing the driveways. Haneman asked if ownership of a townhome allowed for, in 5 years, a remodel to tear down the walls. Kaufrnan replied that the master association and homeowners association would determine future changes. Poss responded that association would control and govern even the exterior appearance, not only the change of that appearance but the maintenance of that appearance. Blaich clarified that the aesthetic control was by the association. Kaufman stated there were set guidelines. Barbara Convisor, public, stated that as a neighbor she had concerns about the project since the inception. She said the approval was for the attached townhomes; there would be narrow views by detaching the townhomes. She said that once the approval was given, there was no turning back; more money was to be made by detaching these townhomes. Barbara Convisor noted that here would be snow building up between each house. Sam Houston, public, stated that there was a townhome association that he created that worked in controlling the exterior maintenance and aesthetics. He said that people who choose to live in townhomes know that someone will be living within 10 feet from them; the planning was done on the project. Houston said that he felt this could be a successfully accomplished project. Michael Convisor, public, stated that he has attended Highlands meetings since the beginning. He said that the major negotiation process took years to get to this point. He asked the commission to refer to staff on not being comfortable with the changes that were proposed. Michael Convisor noted that the county staffdid not realize that the project was going to be this big, this dense; it was something that has never been built in Pitkin County before. He said that this would be the first o_-' many changes to come forward on this project. Mooney asked the difference in employee mitigation required if these townhomes had been planned as single-family homes. Lelack relied that he did not know that answer. Mooney said this was an important issue andhe asked for employee mitigation impacts in the form of ADUs or cash-in-lieu. Ohlson noted that the employee generation was not part of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code but came from the Housing Department; she said she did not think that there was a different calculation or employee generation mitigation for that housing style. Mooney questioned that there was no difference in the measurement for mitigation. Ohlson responded that she said it was based upon bedroom usage; numbers taken from housing authority and board recommendations. Glenn Horn replied that the City 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06~ 2000 Code based the ratio between the residences, free-market units and the residences in affordable housing. Horn said that this was a 60/40-ratio project. Horn said that he did not think there would be any different impacts with the townhomes walls separate or common. Kaufman noted the square footage did not change, the bedrooms have not changed, the size did not change; it was only the connection of the buildings. Hunt stated concern for the lack of usable site space between the townhomes; the open space was chopped-up in the project for meaningless little strips between buildings. He said the triplex was to maximize the consumption of ground; there was less impact with the triplex and more efficient consolidation of driveways, for example. Poss responded that the actual core of open space was for the benefit of these homeowners in the center of this space; this was the privatization of open space. Poss reiterated that attached townhomes meant greater mass; by separating the buildings and allowing light to come through with trees is what the design standards are all about. Blaich said on the aesthetic level, he felt that using a duplex theory would have made a better project. Poss reiterated that the light between the units was the goal, Blaich stated that that the terminology was just the semantics of calling it a townhouse (detached as one unit or two or three units attached) and that his concern was the quality of life and better looking project for the environment. Poss said the dilemma was to break down the massing. Mooney said that since the zoning was being changed to R-6, the units should be detached and ADUs or cash-in-lieu should be required with the single-family guidelines with R-6. Hunt said that he did not disagree, but took issue with the architect's site lines. Hunt said a straight line (a simple string) would not show the~ entrance to the Village but only buildings. Haneman said the pedestrian center was talked about but he said that he did not think that the single-family residence owners would be walking down and up to the Village. Erickson stated that the applicant was now asking for a change from the original County PUD approval, he said that he agreed with Tim that these townhomes were now single-family homes and should be mitigated for affordable housing. Erickson stated that he would rather have the cash-in-lieu go to housing. Erickson said the original PUD approved townhomes, which these were now single-family homes. Erickson asked for a new proposal with mitigation for housing under the city rules. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 Tygre stated that it was not an aesthetic issue but as Tim and Ron pointed out, a single-family subdivision was created on non-conforming lots. She said that was a significant change to the PUD. Tygre noted that not only was the price differential changed, creating a single-family home from a townhome, but the usage was different, a different person would be purchasing a townhome rather than a single- family home. Tygre stated that was of concern because the Highlands changed the Lodge to time-share, therefore loosing another rental pool of available rooms. Tygre said that instead of Highlands becoming part of the tourist area, it was becoming a private area. Tygre noted the intent of what was going on was contrary to the spirit of what was presented in the initial PUD, and that is disturbing. She said that controlling the size would be a problem with what was happening. Kaufman said that there was no difference between duplex or single-family because the owner of the property was still the builder. Kaufman said that there would be the same person purchasing these units. Erickson stated that Jasmine made a very good point, the Highlands concept of a European Village was being eroded away by management changes. Kaufman stated that the fractional ownership guaranteed occupied beds, therefore more skiers and people. Kaufman said that they could argue philosophy, but there were no dramatic changes created here, no employee generation differential. Kaufman said would give the developer the opportunity to create something that people were looking for. Poss stated that this was to create a neighborhood. There was discussion of price rentals, the Village concept and the applicant rethinking the project with the input provided from the commissioners. Hunt stated that some of the criteria had not been met as far as he was concerned; he agreed with the staff findings. Vresilovic stated that staff said that the triplexes and duplexes were approved because these structures were consistent with character of the existing land, providing a core of land from the single-family residences. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Resolution #28, Series 2000, recommending City CounCil establish the Aspen Highlands Base Village Planned Unit Development amendment finding the criteria have been met. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Erickson, no; Hunt, no; Tygre, no; Mooney, yes; Haneman, no; Vresilovic, no; Blaieh, no. DENIED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION - REZONING. CONDITIONAL USE, GMOS, MINOR PUD REVIEW David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated that for the record the notice was provided and met the jurisdictional requirements. Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the Boomerang. Nick Lelack provided the site plan to illustrate the proposed new building location across the street from the existing Boomerang Lodge. The property would be ~ rezoned from medium density residential (R-15) adding the ® PUD overlay and Lodge Preservation; ® GMQS exemptions for lodging and ~ affordable housing and ® conditional use for affordable housing. Lelack explained that in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District only employees of the lodge were allowed to be housed in the lodge, no employees of the general community could be housed in those units. Lelack noted that the proposal was for 6 buildings (5 chalets and a private bathhouse). Each of the chalets would be approximately 1660 square feet; there would be 2,700 square feet each, one-bedroom affordable housing units, category 3 included in 2 of the chalets. There would be a total of 17 bedrooms, including the affordable units with no on-site parking provided. Lelack stated that the rezoning and planning and development reviews were recommendations to City Council; the Growth Management Quota Exemptions for the Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing were under the purview of P&Z and would be decided by the Commission. Lelack noted that the spirit and intent of the proposed extension of the Boomerang Lodge, including the affordable housing component, met the goals of the Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing Programs. He stated that the applicant was dedicated to making as mucl~ of the natural vegetation on site as possible. The chalets would be 2 feet lower than the maximum allowed. Lelack said that the building orientation is not square to the street; however, the entrances are street orientated. He said the trash location was of concern on Hopkins, but felt there could be a solution. The applicant said that there were 27 current Boomerang parking spaces provided with an on-call shuttle service for the guests in the metro area. Lelack noted that the Land Use Code required 13.9 parking spaces total, lodge rooms (11.9) and (2) for the affordable units. He said that staff agreed this was excessive for the site given the fact of the existing on-site 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06, 2000 parking, shuttle service, on street available parking and in-town location. Staff would prefer 5 on-site new spaces, which would be addressed because of fire access from Hopkins Avenue. Staff recommended that the applicant come back with a site plan to provide the parking or go onto City Council with a denial. Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department, stated preference for the trail higher on the hill but the neighbor was not in favor of having a trail across his property. She asked to reserve the right for a trail on Fourth Street if they were not able to make the connection on the higher trail. Schickling said that there might be room to accommodate a trail within the Hopkins Street right-of-way, even though Hopkins Street was a designated pedestrian right-of-way. Mooney asked ifa 5-foot sidewalk would satisfy the trail. Schickling stated preference for a wider pedestrian zone in that area and would prefer it higher where it would connect to Little Cloud Park, the Midland Right-of-way and a new trail easement to the Castle Creek Bridge. Mooney asked if that easement was 8-feet wide. Blaich said that the Gramiger and Reeder properties were the only ones blocking the trail access. Schickling replied that was correct. Hunt asked from the west end, if there was a shorter distance to get down to Fourth Street continuing on the Paterson property. Schickling replied that they did not have that easement in place at this time with the current adjacent property owners. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the meeting to 7:30 p.m. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-1. Sunny Varm and Mitch Haas, planners for applicant, were present to discuss the project. Haas statedthat they did not feel there was an issue with the trail; there was plenty of room behind the property and an alley right-of-way, so it did not affect this property. Haas said that West Hopkins had a 75-foot right-of-way ( 11 feet left over after the trail and two 24-foot travel lanes) which was more than adequate for the trail. Haas stated that studies have shown parallel parking acts as a travel calming function on streets which is a positive for trail uses. Haas said the staff recommendation could be easily resolved for the trash issue. He said this was the purpose LP zone district and that the parking and building orientation issues could be also resolved. Haas noted that a trash enclosure was not needed on site because a housekeeping service was utilized daily and could be combined with the trash across the street at the existing Boomerang since there was no alley access on the proposed site. The trash area for the 2 affordable units could have some sort of enclosure. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 Haas stated that the street orientation was to establish an obvious functional and physical connection to the existing Boomerang Lodge. The buildings were matched to the orientation of the Boomerang Lodge and consistent to the immediate neighborhood and surroundings. Haas explained that the longest plane of each north elevation orientation was parallel to the street; the front doors were visible from the street with each having a pathway up to the street. Charles Paterson, owner, stated that he did the original design in 1957 while at the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. He said that he designed the buildings on a diamond module and continued this. design along with the contours of the property without the western exposure, taking advantage of the area breezes. Paterson stated that in organic architecture, a building should be "of the site" rather than "on a site". Shadow Mountain was a very important part of Aspen, which he preferred to remain as a Park. Paterson noted that he purchased the property 50 years ago and was still here. He feels strongly about what will happen to this property and would keep with the natural state of the area after the construction. Paterson stated that the parking would add concrete pads with street cuts and would imerfere with runners and bikers and that 4 months of the years the parking pods would be empty and be more of an eyesore than vegetation as proposed with on street parallel parking. Paterson noted that most of the guests arrive by plane and use public transportation, free buses and the van. Paterson also noted that this area had been used as a staging area for construction over the last 20 years, and that the passenger cars would be a more desirable change for this area. Haas cited the Land Use Code parking requirement of .7 spaces per bedroom in lodge uses; the PUD allowed for no parking but P&Z and City Council may deem the appropriateness of this request. He reiterated that the existing Boomerang had 27 parking spaces, which have functioned for over 30 years with the encroachment into the street behind the existing gutter and drainage system of the street. Haas noted that bringing parking onto the site would compromise the open space quality and maximize the density of the property. He reiterated the van service and the free bus for the guests would service the lodge and new proposal. Vann noted that in actuality the larger hotels have a .5 parking requirement with the ability to privately rent out the unused spaces to private and commercial uses throughout the season because the parking was not fully utilized. Joyce Ohlson stated that just because this was a Lodge Preservation project, staff did not want to not include parking criteria in the proposed approvals. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 Renee Marcus, public, stated that she lives across from the Boomerang Lodge aha feels there is a need for on-site parking. She noted that she was not against having more lodge units in the area but was against the increased traffic and cars parked along the street. Marcus said the summer tourists do use cars and not the shuttle service. She said since this was an open space, there should be fewer units, 3 units instead of 5, which would provide off-street parking with some sort of alleyway where trash pick-up and other common necessities could be located. Charlie Kaplan, public, stated that he was one of the owners of the Reeder/Johnson parcel; he said they were in the process of putting together a land use application on that parcel. He said that they discussed bringing the trail down to connect with the vacated Fi~h Street (located on that Feeder/Johnson property). Vann stated this would remain a Lodge. Erickson wanted to make sure that the Charlie Paterson ideal for the Boomerang Lodge was preserved and asked what mechanism could be used to preserve this parcel once developed as part of the Paterson legacy. Vann answered that the PUD agreement had to be approved by City Council and could tie the properties together but obviously any agreement could be modified in the future and would have to stand on it's own merit. He said the agreement would be entered into with the Paterson's and the City and could not be unilaterally changed at that time without the City's approval. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the meeting 15 minutes. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-2. Tim Mooney stated that this was one of the most imaginative and creative designs with a lot of heart a spirit and created a garden. Mooney asked for some sort of unobtrusive element to function in the garden as parking spaces on the properties. Blaich stated that he loved the project and did not want to see concrete and parking on this project. He said that the individuality was more important than the straightforward street orientation. He stated honoring Shadow Mountain was important. Blaich and Tygre left at 7:40 p.m. Hunt agreed with Bob on orientation and design, and asked if by edging everything to the east, the affordable housing could be serviced from that area to pick up a couple of parking spaces and trash. He said moving everything 18 inches over could possibly work. Hunt complimented the Boomerang's operation and said that 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 he has never seen a parking problem in this area. Hunt stated that curb cuts and parking would destroy what Paterson is trying to accomplish. Haneman asked if there was an airport-parking permit. Paterson replied that they did not have one but planned to increase that service. Haneman stated that he would waive the additional parking for that airport permit. Erickson requested 2 minimal parking spaces for the affordable units and mentioned that there still was not a city storage facility for cars. Vann stated that the applicant stated that there had never been a parking problem for this current hotel. Erickson stated that he did not want today's decision to cause problems tomorrow with another project in the future. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Resolution #31, Series 2000, approving the Conditional Use for affordable housing and GMQS exemption for the lodge preservation and affordable housing and recommending City Council approve the R-15/Planned Unit Development and minor PUD with the conditions of the resolution eliminating street-orientation, keeping 5 parking spaces, accepting a creative parking design without a permanent impermeable surface. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Yresilovic, Hunt, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Haneman moved to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.; seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carried. ~ed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 06. 2000 MINUTES (04/04/00 & 04/28/00} .............................................................................................................................. 1 COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENT ......................................................................................... 2 ASPEN HIGHLANDS REZONING (CONTD FROM 5/30~ .................................................................................. 3 ASPEN HIGHLANDS BASE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT fPUD~ AMENDMENT .......... 3 BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION - REZONING. CONDITIONAL USE~ GMQS. MINOR PUD REVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................... 10