HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000718ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held the Sister Cities meeting
room with Charles Vresilovic, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman and Tim Mooney
present. Ron Erickson, Steve Buettow and Roger Hunt were excused. City staff in
attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack,
Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, Community Development; Lee Novak, Housing; Ed
Sadler, Asset Manager; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/11/00):
TRUSCOTT FINAL PUD
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon stated that this was the final
public hearing for the Truscott PUD. The changes from the last meeting included
the lighting plan, which will come back to the commission; the parking plan which
is the surface parking lot; intersection construction; transportation management,
the city does not have the authority to exact mitigation for this.
Blaich noted the letter from the Aspen Tennis Club Property Owners Association
12 was included in the Commissioners materials. David Hoefer noted
dated July th
that for the record Charles was provided minutes from the last meeting entitling
him to vote tonight.
Ed Sadler, Asset Manager, stated that the transit recommendations were included
in this proposal with the exception of paid parking. He said staff is working on the
need for additional city services when the RFTA demand rises with the addition of
Burlingame, Truscott and MAA/Burlingame. Jasmine Tygre clarified that there
would be no fee for parking spaces. Sadler answered that not this time. Roger
Haneman asked if any of those projects did not go forward, would the bus route
still be planned, Sadler replied that it would depend on the function of the demand,
if necessary, and what city project created the additional service demands. Tygre
asked ifa similar program to the RFTA dial-a-ride had been discussed. Sadler
responded that RFTA was having difficulty obtaining drivers and retaining trained
drivers. He said the biggest dilemma in dealing with RFTA was staffing. Sadler
said that long-range planning was being done and an offer has been made to RFTA
to offer seasonal units as a recruitment tool.
Blaich asked for clarification on the residential section and the clubhouse. Bendon
noted that during conceptual the Commission indicated that the architecture was
not of the importance as was density, access, parking and transportation. Bendon
1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
said that architecture was part of the conceptual review; the Golf Club remained in
the rustic style. He said the proposed housing architecture also remained as it was
from conceptual to achieve the density. Blaich inquired if the new architectural
drawings were going to be presented or was the PUD based upon the old
information. Blaich noted that the review of architecture was important.
Mooney questioned the Golf building height of 32 feet. Bendon responded that the
height limitations were established through a PUD. Mooney asked if recreation
and housing were in fact 2 separate applicants and recreation would pay for the
Golf Course and landscaping. Bendon said that is what he understood. Mooney
noted it was stated last time that there was no money for the versatility of design
for future levels of the parking lot and felt that was pertinent. Sadler responded
that housing would be paying for the parking, because of the increased need for
housing; golf and recreation will be paying of some of the parking lot
improvements. He said the golf building was part of the bond issue, as were the
tennis courts. Sadler said the 18th Green move would probablYthgo to a November
vote for funding; it was presumed that for safety reasons the 18 Hole had to be
moved. Sadler noted that if Junior Golf moved to the old Pro Shop Building, then
they would pay for that building.
Jasmine Tygre noted the newspaper stated the land for the cart barn and parking lot
will be sold to housing. She stated that she understood the parking lot but why the
cart barn. Sadler replied that housing was being built where the cart barn is located
at the present time.
Mooney asked if it was practical to limit the parking lot because of the grade that
the clubhouse was perched upon, making it more massive, obtrusive and out of
what was needed and as an added commercial destination attraction. Mooney said
this was an amenity for the recreational, golf and cross-county skiing experience.
He said the creation of a restaurant as a destination location was not a facility that
was in character with this area. Laura Kirk, DHM, explained the layout of the
building with the Nordic facility including ADA accessibility with no changes
being made to the first tee. Kirk stated they were working within the constraints of
keeping the first tee, future CDOT requirements, and creating as much parking as
possible for all the needs with the existing grade combinations. Blaich noted the
views from restaurant also include the golf course.
Shirley Henley, public, agreed that that the clubhouse and restaurant seemed to get
bigger and bigger. Sadler disagreed and stated that it has gotten smaller because of
budget constraints and that the destination resort was not a desired result.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
Carol Farino, public, asked how many Stories above ground are the pro shop and
restaurant. Bendon replied it was about a story and a half above ground and a story
and a half below ground.
Mooney asked if price was a constraint, why would the extra costs be taken into a
32-foot high apex building. Sadler answered that ifa better facility was not
created, then there was no sense in spending the money. Sadler reminded the
Commission there was an election in favor of building the new facility.
Farino said that the point was missed; a higher ceiling was not going to make a
person play more golf or cross-county ski more often. Bendon stated golf was the
driving force behind the new facility. He said the existing restaurant was over
3500 square feet, nearly twice the size of the proposed restaurant.
Loren Wertz, public, asked if the restaurant was only for the golf patrons. He
stated that parking was being lost at Truscott, and asked where would the
restaurant parking be located. Blaich answered that parking would be located in
the recreational parking lot. Kirk replied that there was an increased capacity of
the recreational parking lot spaces.
Brian, public, stated that if the recreation parking took over part of the Truscott
parking, then the Truscott parking would spill over into the recreational parking.
Blaich noted there would be a facility manager responsible for the enforcement
aspects and systems. Bendon noted the residential parking would be increased
over 100 spaces. Wertz noted the parking spaces were actually being decreased
with the increase in housing.
Farino said that the additional volume and with decreased seating, then stating that
it was not a restaurant was confusing to her. Blaich clarified that it was a
restaurant, not a destination restaurant. Blaich said that because this was Aspen, he
thought that this would in fact be a destination restaurant. Sadler responded that
two-thirds of golfers pay one-third of the costs of the revenue for our golf course,
and they couldn't compete from given what was happening up and down the
valley, then the recourse Was to raise the fees for the local. Farino stated the locals
worry that the green fees would go up because ora new fancy building.
Mooney asked what private facilities would be generated above and beyond a
traditional restaurant vs. functions, weddings and banquets; he asked the hours of
operation compromising this area. Sadler stated that this was a concessionaire
with very specific operation contract standards. This is not being design for
banquet facilities. He said Nordic use will be minimal.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
Reese Williams, public, said that from what was just stated, this facility would not
be used for special functions, not for banquets. Sadler reiterated that it would not
interfere with the Golf Facility, but the winter concessionaire would be able to do
that. Williams stated that you were allowing a private concessionaire a destination
resort and providing them means to do it. Williams asked if it was being built to
have a special facility. Sadler stated that was not the design, they had to make sure
the concessionaire could succeed in this facility, but that was not the design or
intent. Bendon commented that the uses were allowed by right; the applicant could
by right tear down the existing restaurant and with an administrative review and
mitigation for housing rebuild without a conditional use review.
Tygre said the commission reviewed the entire PUD with density and traffic, and if
the restaurant would increase these concerns, then decisions would be affected as
part of the whole; She stated that everything was interrelated. Bendon restated
the use was there, so that was not part of the review process. Blaich said it was a
change because of the re-placement of the cart barn and more housing; he said if
the residents were to use the restaurant then he would feel more comfortable about
it and view it as a plus.
Charles Vresilovic stated that looking at the blueprints, the kitchen could not
handle 112 seats; he said if costs were a concern, then cut some seats. Sadler
stated that the number of seats is not set. Vresilovic noted the warm months would
bring the diners and maybe an outside grill could serve the restaurant better.
Vresilovic suggested dropping the height of the building. Blaich noted that there
was an outside seating area with an outdoor grill on the plan. Sadler noted it would
be limited to what it could handle in the off-seasons.
Ted Guy, architect, explained there were 2 phases of housing with nothing more
than 3 stories in height. The units were studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms; they were more
efficient and smaller than the standards set by the housing authority but have been
approved by the housing authority (plans were in the packets). Each building
contained approximately 13 units with a variety of roof heights to break up the
mass; different colors and materials were utilized with flexibility of regional forms.
Guy said the choice of architecture was driven by cost efficiency but to maintain
the flexibility of the actual structural system of the building due to the fluctuation
in building materials. He stated the roofs would not be shiny, metal or reflective
materials. He said there would be no snow shedding.
Guy said that Phase II was similar to Phase I with the exception of no parking
underneath the buildings. Each unit has it's own storage locker, common laundry
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
and mechanical in the lower level. Guy noted that handicap access would be
provided to all levels.
Tygre asked for clarification on the fact that there were three stories above
carports. Guy replied that for the purposes of the building code, the open parking
with the stories above them would make the building approximately 42 feet at the
maximum height. He said it was broken up with lower elements. Tygre asked the
approximate square footage of each building. Guy replied that there was about
54,000 square feet of residential construction, but he said that he did not have the
actual answer. Lee Novak stated that the buildings were between 4500 and 5500
square feet each.
Blaich said that he would only be comfortable with approval ifP&Z had a design
review prior to final approval. Guy stated that with his track record, he had no
problem coming back to P&Z, if so desired. Guy said that for clarification, the
inside studs may change material but the look and scale would be the same. Blaich
said he still felt uncomfortable without this coming back to P&Z. Sadler said that
if there were significant changes because of budget problems, and then it would be
brought back to P&Z. Bendon stated there was an automatic catch in the PUD
process as a site-specific plan, which then had to come back to P&Z on the larger
projects.
Mooney questioned the look of the garage facility doors. Guy stated that there
were no garage doors, they were carports pa~ially buried into the hill. Guy said
there would also be gravel roofs.
Haneman asked how much smaller than minimum were these units. Guy answered
about 10% but then there was detached storage with the carports and storage units
for each residential unit. Bendon noted that the new housing guidelines referred to
provisions for storage and amenities incorporated into the design, which would
allow for a smaller unit.
Carol Farino voiced concern for the fact that 42 feet was very tall and looking at
carports would not be very attractive.
Shirley Henley questioned the 3 story buildings. The architect and board stated for
clarification that the project was always 3 stories. Blaich noted it was 4 floors but
now, brought back down to 3 stories.
Mooney reiterated that there were 40 spaces of over-flow parking fxom Burlingame
that were to be designated here in the winter. He asked if this was a permanent
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
part of the Truscott parking plan. Bendon responded that the study was underway
and the location for that Burlingame parking was yet to be determined. Bendon
said that it was thought the winter would provide plenty of space for even snow
storage on site in the Truscott recreational parking lot. Blaich noted that the
impression was that current Truscott residential parking was utilized there in the
winter at this time. Blaich stated that it would again come back to traffic control.
Bendon noted that Burlingame was designed for on-site additional parking.
David Hoefer noted that some public member wanted to discuss the traffic light.
Sadier sated that he requested a written response from the Highway Department on
how long it would take, in months, to get a temporary light approved because of
the lengthy approval procedure. Blaich said that it was guaranteed that if the light
was not available, there would be flaggers, even though neighbors were not
pleased with that solution. Mooney asked when the permanent light was
scheduled Sadier answered that there were 2 options: (D either March/April or (~
the off-season of April/May. He said either way it depended upon the asphalt
season or when it would impact traffic on Highway 82 the least. Sadler clarified
that there were required approvals from P&Z and Council, and bidding the job
prior to paving the road. He noted that then the asphalt season was finished for the
year (November); he said the warrants were not driving this back until spring, it
was construction.
Carol Farino stated that from the communications with CDOT she was the first
person who asked for the light on an emergency basis.
Reese Williams, public, stated that there have been people almost struck and killed
from cars passing on the right side of a left turning vehicle. He noted that every
year traffic becomes heavier. He said that he understood that they did not make the
decisions, but the city could certainly request that a light be in place now.
Williams stated that the traffic light should be in place now irregardless of
construction because of the intersection. Farino agreed that a pedestrian light,
because of traffic, was an emergency situation. Vina Williams, public, wanted to
stress the danger of that intersection.
Blaich asked if the Tennis Subdivision had approached the city prior about the
intersection and the need for traffic control. Farino replied that they kept writing
letters to the city and the newspaper editors.
Loren Wertz cited the number of cars that backed-up, adding to this dangerous
situation when people were trying to turn into Truscott, especially when the bus
was stopped at the intersection. Blaich responded that he understood the
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
importance of this situation and dealing with CDOT was the problem here. He
noted that they should attend Council meetings. Bendon stated that the
implementation ora traffic light as soon as possible was in the resolution.
Mooney asked that the RFTA housing be linked to routes that service Aspen and be
included as part of the motion. Sadler stated that he could not commit to that by
RFTA that this specific route service in exchange for housing. Mooney clarified
that there was a consideration for the scheduling of the affordable housing
residents in this location rather than just the normal routes. David Hoefer
suggested that the language could read that city staffwork with RFTA on public
transportation to Truscott. Bendon stated that Ed Sadler made the representation,
which becomes part of the approval process. Bendon also noted the provision of
residential units at the Burlingame seasonal project for RFTA Employees in
response to concerns as related to the continued viable transit aspect and as related
to the Truscott Project and potential Burlingame Village project. Mooney stated
that he wanted this included in the motion so it was a permanent part of the
resolution for discussion. Blaich noted from the newspapers it was stated that this
was a transit-orientated project and transit concerns need to be addressed for the
project to be successful.
Haneman noted that he had a lot of hope for this project. He said that he hoped
that there was enough parking; he hoped that the clubhouse did not appear to be
too tall; he hoped that the transportation management plan would be effective and
hoped the housing design would not look like employee housing. He said as
important as this project was, that was too much to hope for. Tygre agreed with
Roger's concerns~ She stated that she still had too many questions on the project
to move forward.
Mooney stated that he did not have confidence and peace of mind in what and how
this would work with the neighbors; on how this project would define sprawl; on
how it defined a transportation-orientated facility. He said it conflicted with the
balance of affordable housing, the clubhouse, parking lots and so on.
Blaich stated that the commissioners had the same hopes and he heard Tim just say
he wanted faith in the project. He said from where this began, many improvement
have been made to the project. He said there were still concerns this commission
had that probably would not be resolved but he said that he would go on the faith
that from previous projects there was commitment from the city to do this project
right. Blaich stated the public concerns will be taken into consideration.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
MOTION:Tim Mooney moved to recommend to City Council approval
of the Aspen Golf CoUrse Tennis Club/Truscott Affordable Housing
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and Rezoning with
the conditions outlined in P&Z Resolution #00-29. Adding condition
#22. Any substantial modification to the architecture of the project, the
exterior material shall require review and would require review of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, if there were significant changes
made to the designs, the clubhouse use and a provision for RFTA
Employees in response to concerns as related to the continued viable
transit aspects, and that all representations made were part of the
approval. Charles Vresilovic second. Roll call vote: Haneman, no;
Mooney, yes; Tygre, no; Vresiiovic, no; Blaich, yes. DENIED 3-2.
Hoefer noted that even though P&Z denied the motion, it would move forward to
City Council. Blaich thanked the public for their participation.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tim Mooney noted that a West End residence on Hallam (4 bedroom/4 bath) was
being sold for fractional-ownership and asked if this was an allowable use in that
zone disrfict. He said it was being shown as a quarter share for $1,3000,000.00.
Joyce Ohlson replied that fractional ownership has been discussed as it relates to
lodges and single-family dwellings. She said that the proposed uses for fractional
ownership still conformed to our zoning regulations and that zoning had not
changed for this residence. Ohlson said that if the property were divided over lot
lines, condominization or subdivided it would be a different than dividing the
property over time. She said that in terms of land use they were still in
conformance; it was still used for single-family dwelling purposes. She said that
there were obvious impacts of the use by different families over time with more
traffic impacts without the stability of a single family living there all the time.
Ohlson noted that there were many corporate ownership homes in Aspen.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE REZONING AND CODE AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Joyce Ohlson explained that the annexation
of Aspen Highlands Village was accomplished in April. She noted that there were
2 components (D assigning the initial zoning ® code amendment to create a new
zone district to apply to the Aspen Highlands Village property. Ohlson said the
base district included certain land uses in the new code provisions.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
Ohlson said that Aspen Highlands Village contains about 80 acres and obtained
County approval as a Planned Unit Development with site specific development
plan with assigned uses, densities and development standards. She said the zoning
needs to be assigned to most closely to match the city zoning. Ohlson said there
was a water service agreement entered into with Aspen Highlands Village upon
annexation that no non-conforming uses would be created.
Ohlson noted the R-30 zoning, Thunder Bowl Area side of the base village, would
be the larger lot zoning. There were 2 other residential areas proposed, the other
(Maroon side) would be R-15 (15,000 square foot lots); RMF for the residential
multi-family areas as well as conservation zoning containing open space with
skiing as an allowed use.
Ohlson said the Base Village was a multi-use area with a complex of 8 buildings
containing ski-related uses; within the Base Village buildings there were 72 lodge
units, a ticketing area, lift tower area, 62 dormitory use beds, category units (16
one-bedroom and 28 three-bedroom), 55,000 square feet of multi-use area - retail,
restaurant, skier service facilities, administrative office area, meeting rooms.
Ohlson noted this would be P&Z Resolution #28, Series 2000, creating a new zone
district Ski Base.
Ohlson stated that special events were permitted uses with the Ski Area Zone uses
and other uses would only be allowed as conditional uses. The permitted uses in
Ski Area Base (SKI) zone district: Alpine and Nordic ski areas, related use~ and
support facilities; Lodge units; Hotel; Multi-family dwellings; Detached residential
or duplex dwellings; Dining rooms, customary commercial uses, laundry and
recreational facilities located on the same site of and for guest of lodge units, hotels
and dwelling units; Ski area administrative offices; Restaurants and bars; Special
events normally associated with ski area including such events as ski races, bicycle
races, concerts approved through temporary use permits; Parks outdoor
recreational uses and trails; Recreational facility; Accessory dwelling units meeting
the provisions of Section 26.520.040; Retail establishments; Public transportation
stop; Terminal building and transportation related facilities; Medical clinic
accessory to the ski area; and Accessory Building Uses.
The conditional uses in Ski Area Base (SKI) zone district: Day Care Center;
Timesharing; Offices, businesses; Public and Private stucface and underground
parking areas; Essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services
and buildings (excluding maintenance shops); Post office substation; and Outdoor
vendor carts or areas for food and beverage sales and preparation.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
Bob Blaich asked where the possible gondola connection site with Buttenuilk
would be located. Ohlson replied that it would be the Ski Base Zone District, with
transportation related facilities and would be a permitted use there. She said that
would be a PUD amendment, so there would be a proposal with review. Ohlson
said this project was a Master Planned Area.
Mooney said that they were locked into the original density and nothing more. He
asked why the creation of the Ski Base Zone District did not go through public
hearings and debate like the ones that the SCI Zone District went though for
allowable uses because of the possible ramifications associated with the permitted
and conditional uses. Ohlson said the SCI Zone was a local serving in town.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-1. (Tygre opposed)
Mooney asked to debate time-share as an integral part of the permitted uses that
were included in the Ski Base Zone because the city accepted the county approval.
Glenn Horn, Hines Planner, stated that the county first approved the entire Aspen
Highlands Village and then the time-share (fractional ownership on the two lodges)
was submitted about 9 months later as a special review process. He said that under
the water agreement the time-share was included as a conditional use in this zone
district. Horn stated that the land use approvals were embodied within the site
specific development plan (the PUD guide and detailed submission consolidated
plan). He said the timesharing was passed after the main documents of the site
specific development plan were adopted by the county and asked that the timeshare
document (County Resolution # ) constitute the plan for Highlands and be added to
the documents City Resolution #. Horn stated that he wanted to make clear what
was included in the city approvals with the reception #s. Ohlson asked to review
the time-sharing documents separately.
No public comments.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution #28, Series
2000, recommending City Council amend the Land Use Code to create
the Ski Area Base (SKI) zone district and amending related sections of
the Land Use Code as contained within the Resolution, finding that
these amendments comply with the standards of review set forth in
Section 26.310.040; amending #1 adding the word typically associated
with and #10 delete the words normally. Roger Haneman second. Roll
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
call vote: Haneman. yes; Vresiiovic, yes; Tygre, yes; Mooney, yes;
Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
Horn asked that under permitted uses that races be separated from concerts so there
was no confusion that a temporary use was needed for a ski race at Highlands.
Mooney said that some events might be more special events than the local events
and asked how it would be handled. Ohlson replied the NASTAR, which
happened every week was not a special event, but something like the WORLD
CUP would be a special event and that was why all special events were included
under one heading requiring special events review.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve P&Z Resolution #27,
Series 2000, recommending to City Council the zoning for the Aspen
Highlands Village PUD as contained within the Resolution, finding that
this zoning complies with the standards of review set forth in Section
26.310.040 of the Land Use Code, contingent upon the Council's
amendment of the Land Use Code as put forth in P&Z Resolution #28
to include the reception #s, recorded at Book 47, pages 1 - 10 and time
share Resolution #. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes;
Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Vresilovic, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
Mooney stated that he wanted to discuss the time-share and residential multi-
family allocations but would take Joyce's recommendation. Horn asked to add a
section 4 stating that developments in Aspen Highlands Village Subdivision shall
notbe subject to the City of Aspen's 8040 Greenline Review Process. Hoefer
responded that was a legal issue to be addressed through the City Attorney's office.
Horn also requested adding that conditional use approvals of time-sharing
(building 2 & 8) be added to the motion. Horn said there would be food sales ·
through outdoor vendor carts in the plaza at the base of the skiers and these were
represented throughout the planned use review process. He noted it was subject to
audit for employee housing mitigation but not received as a special review and
considered it was an approved use in the county. Hoefer stated there was a
problem with these issues being raised at this time without staff review and
recommended that the motion on the table be voted upon and suggested bringing
that to City Council. Horn agreed.
Horn said there were 32 single-family lots at Highlands; 12 lots had approval for a
maximum of 5,500 square feet of FAR but at this time they were only entitled to
5,000 FAR. He stated that a property owner could obtain a TDR for the additional
500 square feet, but he questioned any provisions in either the city code or the
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
county code for inter-jurisdictional use ofTDRs. BlaiCh stated that would be an
open item to be discussed with the attorney's offices.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes.
Roger Itaneman second. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WORLDLINK CAFE, 520 East I-Iyman Street, REDUCTION OF OPEN
SPACE
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Fred Jarman explained that in the
commercial core all building sites must provide 25% open space. The proposal
was to place 2 tables and 8 chairs in the open space. Staff feels that this would not
impede the pedestrian flow along the sidewalk. David Hoefer asked if there was a
size in which a table would be considered. Bob Blaich stated that the DEPP
proposal included detailed seating with street furniture but no dimensions were
decided upon. Joyce Ohlson noted that HPC reviewed this proposal because of the
historic overlay with a change in the windows. Blaich said that DEPP was looking
for places like this around town.
Mooney asked if this approval stayed with the business or the land. Ohlson replied
that it stayed with the land and the Resolution#00-30 called for 12 outdoor seats
with 3 tables. Hoefer noted that the seats could not be in the public right-of-way, it
had to be on private property.
Charles Vresilovic said that a 4 top conStitutes 16 square feet. He asked what the
plan was for keeping the area hosed down and clean. James Guest, owner, stated
that had a contracted maintenance company. Vresilovic requested a recycle
container on premises in a visible area. Guest agreed. Mooney asked if this was
going to have restaurant service outside here, because that was different than just a
couple of tables set-up for drinking coffee. Guest expl:ained that there were no
plates or cutlery; everything Was served in a bag. He said there were chessboards
outside because inside there were just computer terminals and no Place to set food.
Hoefer noted that if the use of the building changed then the use would go away
for this outside seati~gg and restaurant. Guest said the tables were chained at night.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend approval of the
Worldlink Caf6 Special Review/Reduction of Open Space for outdoor
seating in the patio/garden area on the south side of the property located
12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000
at 520 East Hyman Avenue specifying 2 tables with 8 chairs. Roger
Haneman second. ~Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Vresilovic, yes;
Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (tout to 08/01/00)
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated the notice was
received and the hearing continued to August 1
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing on
Land Use to August 1, 2000. Roger Itaneman Second. APPROVED 4-0.
~~puty City Clerk
13
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
at 520 East Hyman Avenue specifying 2 tables with 8 chairs. Roger
Haneman second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Vresilovic, yes;
Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (eont to 08/01/00)
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated the notice was
received and the hearing continued to August 1st.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing on
Land Use to August 1, 2000. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0.
Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
13
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2000
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1
TRUSCOTT FINAL PUD .................................. : ....................................................................................................... 1
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 8
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE REZONING AND CODE AMENDMENT .................................................... 8
WORLDLINK CAFl~ 520 EAST HYMAN STREET, REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE ................................ 12
VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (CONT TO 08/01/00) .............................. ; ............... 13
14