HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020205ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -Februar~ 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
FORMER "GOLF PRO SHOP" SUBDIVISION, REZONING, PUD .................... 2
LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD .............................................. 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
Eric Cohen, Vice-chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting at 4:35 in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners
Run EricksOn, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Bert Myrin, Ruth Kruger and Steven
Buett0TM were present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Bob Blaich served at his last
meeting on January 29, 2002. Staff in attendance: Fred Jarman, Joyce Ohlson,
Community Development; Brian Flynn, Parks Environmental Ranger; Nick Adeh,
City Engineer; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson stated that he felt like a broken record asking what was happening
with the Caribou Alley open space. Joyce Ohlson replied that sarah Oates was
working on it. Erickson also inquired about the parking plan and the results of the
housing study. Ohlson responded that there was not a final document from
housing, but they were working on it.
Joyce Ohlson noted that the fractional ownership document would be discussed
with council next week, February 12th.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to apprOve the minutes from 12/04/01,
12/18/01, 01/15/02 and GMC 01/15/02. Roger Itaneman seconded.
APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FORMER "GOLF PRO SHOP" SUBDIVlSION~ REZONING, PUD
Eric Cohen opened the public hearing and nOtice was provided, jOyce Ohlson
noted that there was a noticing problem with the Golf Pro Shop.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger mOved to continue the'public hearing on the
former "Golf Pro Shop" t° March 3, 2002. ROger Itaneman seconded.
APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 01/15/02):
LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing for Lot 3 the Top of Mill Aspen
Mountain PUD. The notice was provided at the 01/15/02 meeting.
Fred Jarman explained that along with the PUD there were 8 specific land use
requests I.) Subdivision; 2.) Condominiumization; 3.) Mountain View Plane; 4.)
Special Review; 5.) GMQS ExemptiOn; 6.) 8040 Greenline; 7.) Rezoning from
Conservation and R/15 to L/TR and 8.) Final PUD Development Plan.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
Jarman stated that there were 47 remaining residential credits, 34 were spread over
Lot 5 so the remaining 13 were proposed for Lot 3. Jarman noted that the entire
project was residential and the 50 re-construction credits were converted to 17,
which makes the 51 for Lot 5.
Sarman stated that Lot 3 was subdivided into 11 parcels; 2 were open space parcels,
8 were development parcels and 1parcel,#9 would be subdivided, as it existed as a
6-space garage £or the Summit Place COndominiums. Jarman said that the intent
was to draw a line around the garage structure so to become fee simple, transferred
to Summit Place with deed restrictions keeping it a garage in perpetuity.
Jarman said that the current zoning was Conservation, R-15 PUD and LTR/PUD.
The lot size was 242,000 square feet and staff recommended approval with the
conditions included in the revised Resolution that Jarman distributed. Jarman
noted that as a matter of process, conceptual approval was received on 12/06/99
and an amended conceptual approval on 05/29/01, which related to parcel 9 the
parking garage for Summit Place. Tonight was the review o£the final PUD by
P&Z with the recommendation to City Council.
Jarman explained the layout of the parcels and units; the single-family house
proposed on parcel 7 was being called typical, which was not in the proposal to be
built now but floor plans and elevations were provided. The condominization
request was to condo the free-market sixplex (2 triplexes on parcel 1), the
affordable housing quad and a duplex. Jarman noted that this was also in the view
plane of the Wheeler Opera House, which hits the Mountain itself at Summit Place
Road. Jarman said that the grade of the ground hit the view plane vs. what's
between you and the mountain.
Jarman said that the special review was to determine the parking for the affordable
housing units; the applicant provided 2 spaces per unit for the affordable quad.
There was a request for GMQS exemption for that AH quad, which was exempt
from GMQS because it was completely affordable.
Jarman said that the 8040 Greenline ran within in the property, which was intended
to check for the dangers of avalanche, slope, mudflow and storm water drain off
the property to make sure that it was suitable for development.
Jarman stated that the applicant planned to rezone the property, which currently
included 3 zones, which eliminate the R-15 PUD and be replaced by the LTR with
the PUD overlay. Jarman utilized maps and drawings to locate the areas. Jarman
noted that there was a revised landscape plan, also a drainage, mudflow and storm
water run-off plan for this site. Jarman stated that the Development Review
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
Committee (DRC) worked out many issues regarding the engineering of the site;
there was a signed agreement from the applicant and City Engineering.
Jarman said that there was a revised plan for the free-market duplex adding an
ADU on Lot 3; the ADU was 435 square feet, sub-grade in that duplex. There was
also a revised site plan regarding the circular drive; South Mill Street turns into a
private road serving parcels 2 through 8. The circle was revised to a teardrop
design providing more space for landscaping and the treatment for top of the trail.
Another proposed change was the access to the free market Summit Place
triplexes, which contained a buffered space. The affordable housing four-plex
configuration was changed to a north south access to the garages.
Jarman said that the request for dimensional requirements was changed on parcels
1 through 9 as it served under the PUD/LTR zone district because of the size of
parcel 9 being under the setback requirements. The duplex and single-family
parcels were greater than the maximum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet; these were
between 15,000 and 19,000 square feet.
Jarman said that the Top of Mill Trail and Aspen Mountain Trail, which both cross
the property and would be formally platted. The applicant agreed to improve the
trails, but one trail did not have a connection therefore that trail would not be
completed until the connection was completed.
Brain Flynn stated that he worked with the Parks Natural Resources and was in
support of this project. Flyrm said that they met for the last few months with the
developer and landscape architect and have come up with wonderful tree
mitigation agreements and landscaping plans~ Flynn stated that the plan protected
the natural resources and a re-vegetation of natural resources to make them blend.
Flyun noted that tree removal was quite significant, initially it will have a big
impact, but the landscape plan and re-vegetation of natural resource actually
benefited the city by removing the degraded soil. Ruth Kruger asked if the trees
would be put back in place. Flynn replied that they would not because the trees
that were being removed were possibly contaminated; the trees would be replaced
with maples, oaks, Douglas fir and native grasses. Ron Er!ckson asked the height
of the trees that were to replace the 30 to 40 foot tall trees that would be removed.
Laura Kirk, landscape architect, responded that there was a range of sizes of trees
proposed. Jarman noted that conditions 8-11 regarded parks and trails.
Nick Adeh, City Engineer, stated that this (letter of commitment) was the product
of work from the last 6 years; there was a master plan for the Aspen Mountain
Drainage Basin located at the toe of the slope from east to west. Adeh said that the
amount of flows identified that possibly could come down from the mountain
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
slopes and extensive debris flow studies were also accomplished. Adeh said the
concerns were the amount of the snowmelt runoff generated from spring snowmelt
with more impacts from the man-made snow with the possibility of spring rains
that could have magnitude impacts on the deposits built against the buildings from
this drainage. Adeh noted that from this study came the recommended
development guidelines for building orientation impacts. Adeh explained the
underground systems were designed to carry the initial rainstorm, nuisance waters,
but with a major event the street would have a wide enough right-of-way (channel)
to allow that to act as the major flood channel. Adeh stated that was the major
concept that the city and developer worked together to re-orientate the buildings in
such a way that in the event of significant storms, the impacts would be minimized
on the buildings.
Adeh stated that there were issues that were certain points that had to be reviewed
as Lot 5 drainage issue, which have been mitigated. Adeh said that Lot 3 was
agreed to have a city storm drain managed system that would be extended from the
St. Regis on Mill Street to this site and help the on mountain drainage plan. The
master drainage plan would comply with the storm water management regulations
that will be coming to Aspen with water quality control ponds, one at the Rio
Grande as an inactive detention pond. The developer was asked to contribute
towards the construction of that pond; drainage impact was determined with a ratio
formula to identify the development impact on the system and agreed to a
monetary lump sum to be applied to the retention pond.
Adeh said that the construction impacts on the transportation corridors of Aspen,
Mill and Durant for the construction truck traffic; the developer agreed to pay for
half of the street overlay costs resulting from this accelerated construction impact
on the roads.
Jarman noted conditions 1 - 7 specifically discussed the housing requirements.
Sunny Vann introduced Scott Writer and Frank Goldsmith representing the
ownership; Chris Lecroix and Ron Garfield, attorneys; John Golumbus the
architect; Laura Kirk the landscape architect and Jay Hammond, Schmueser
Gordon Meyer. Vann stated that Council approved the conceptual apprOval and
amended approval for Lot 3. Vann reiterated that the cul-d-sac was re-engineered
into a softer design that lent itself to the project. Vann said the access issue
surrounding the 2 triplexes on parcel 1 that was changed to a less impactive and
more attractive solution to that design; it also reduced vehicular impacts on the
western end of the site (the ski easement and pedestrian trail). Vann stated that the
soils would be capped to clean up any adverse environmental impacts with these
site improvements. Vann stated that in order to do the clean up, the city required
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -Februar~ 5~ 2002
mitigation for the loss of the vegetation and the applicant worked with the city for
the landscaping of the site. Vann stated there was a sizable cash contribution to
parks for landscaping purposes elsewhere in the city; they were exploring re-
vegetating portions of the lower ski slope behind the site. Vann noted that there
were also cash contributions towards the citywide drainage improYements and
street resurfacing. Vann stated that these agreements would become part of the
PUD agreement.
Vann stated that there were minor dimensional requirements that did not apply as
in parcel 9, which was being conveyed to the Summit Place Condominiums
Garage. Vann stated that a condition of approval was conveyance and that the
parcel could not be expanded, it cannot be used for FAR purposes for the Summit
Place Condominiums and it could only be used for a garage. It was a garage in
perpetuity; the proposed setbacks were less than the LTR zone district, the variance
requested reduced the size of the parcel that the garage sat upon. Vann said that
the variance for the single-family lots was to increase the lot sizes because ora
code amendment that changed lot sizes to 6,000 square feet in the LTR zone
district; that was the rezoning issue and PUD variances. Vann said that the
conditions were acceptable to the applicant.
Subdivision. Ron Erickson asked to outline the open space parcel on the maps.
Scott Writer traced the drawing of the open space on parcel B at the base of the ski
area and the trail easement. Writer said that the other open space parcel was in the
middle of the teardrop shaped driveway. Vann provided the history of the
easement on the western side from the time John Roberts owned this property to
the current owner with the appropriate approvals from the City Council and SkiCo;
the boundary was changed with no reduction in skiable terrain as a result of it.
Condominization. Vann stated that condominization was required in order to
convey the individual townhouses that were on parcel 1, to sell the parcel 2
affordable housing units and in order to sell each side of the duplex. Vann noted
that a condominization plat was required upon substantial completion of
construction reviewed by the city engineer and attorney based upon compliance
with the city's regulations. Roger Haneman asked to whom the street would
belong. Vann replied that there would be a master homeowners association,
individual condominium associations that participate in the master homeowners
association with the individual homeowners participation; the street would be
maintained by all parties. Vann stated that the pro-rata share of the affordable
component would be a fair assessment. Jarman noted that Condition #7 in the
resolution addressed the affordable housing responsibilities.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
Mountain View Plane. Erickson stated that he could not visualize the view plane
from the Wheeler. Vaun explained that the city adopted a variety of view planes;
specified angles from a certain height from various places in town. Vann said that
the Wheeler Opera House from standing outside the front door, which was
projected from an angle up toward the mountain and generally designed to limit the
height of structures in the foreground. Vaun noted that the building directly across
from the Wheeler was lower in height than the buildings on the west end 0fthe
block. Vaun said that in this case that angle, as it goes up, intersects the ground on
Mill Street before it reaches this site. Vann stated that the only portion of the site
that can be seen from the Wheeler was the portion that was cleared for the ski area
and lifts. Erickson stated that his concern was landscaping and asked how the
landscape plan would disguise thc townhomes walking up Mill Street. Vaun
replied that Summit Place Condominiums and the garage were right in front of the
townhomes. Vann stated that there were some retaining walls and terraced land to
support larger landscaping to reduce the visual impacts. Vann stated that the
landscaping carried a financial guarantee by the applicant and must completed by a
certain timetable. Erickson noted that there was a trail easement that would not be
completed at this time but in the future; he asked if the applicant agreed to finish
that east side of the trail in the future. Vann replied that the trail easement that was
originally granted didn't hook up to another trail; the trail would be on the plat and
built when the connecting trail easements were built and remained as a condition of
this approval and written in the PUD agreement. Erickson asked how this
condition would apply after the developer was gone; he asked who then would be
responsible for the easement. Vann responded that it would be a burden that the
homeowners association would endure. Writer stated that it would be in the
association agreements or the money could be put up front to Parks.
Special Review. Haneman asked if there was one space per bedroom, maximum 2
spaces. Vann replied that all affordable housing was established by special review;
the applicant chose to treat this as the free-market equivalent, which required 2
spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant proposed 2 covered spaces per unit plus
aprons for additional on site parking not on street; they exceeded the requirement.
GMQS Exemptions. Erickson asked what category the affordable units would be.
Vann replied that those units were required to mitigate Savannah's prior
demolition of multi-family housing units throughout the PUD. Vann explained
that the land use code specified how many bedrooms needed to be put back and
how much square footage must be built; the housing guidelines state that all such
multi-family replacement housing put back shall be category 2. Vann stated that
these were large three 3 bedroOm and one 4 bedroom units, which the housing
authority may designate as different categories.
'7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -Februarv 5, 2002
8040 Greenline Review. Vann noted that the 8040 Greenline went through the
middle of the property. Vann noted that originally the 8040 was a review for
adequate water, access, utilities, environmental concerns of drainage and mudflow,
aesthetic concerns of grading the site and architectural design. They requested
8040 Greenline Review for parcels 1,2 and 3 £or which there was specific
architecture and grading. Vann said that they requested a generic 8040 Greenlines
for the rest of the sites with respect to the engineering issues and geological
concerns. Vann stated that the condition read that at the time that those single-
family homes were designed they would come back to P&Z for separate $040
reviews. Vann stated that there would be site specific landscaping when the 8040
reviews were done on each parcel. Steven Buettow stated concern for avalanche
on parcels 1, 3, 5 and 6; he asked these parcels be protected from avalanche. Vann
replied that there was no indication that there was any avalanche hazard on those
parcels. Adeh responded that the slopes were much steeper to shoot the snow
closer to the toe of those slopes and there were openings between the buildings in
the event o£the flow. Vann noted that there were catwalks that were cordoned off
in that area which re-vegetation and landscaping was planned and would be further
studied. Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and $ would come back to P&Z for 8040 Greenline
Review;
Rezoning from Conservation and R- 15 to LTR. Erickson asked if there was a
matrix if the property was zoned R-15 like the one for the LTR zoning. Vann
stated that there were multiple zone districts, the strictest zoning would apply for
all 3-zone districts and only 1 unit would be able to be built. Vann noted that
Savannah and Four Peaks bargained for rezoning under the PUD agreement and
were subsequently approved by the voters in a referendum by the community.
Vann said that the LTR made the most sense for this property after review of the
PUD.
Bert Myrin asked if the turning circle met the fire department requirements. Vann
replied that the fire department would review all of the final plans and he worked
with the fire department on the property. Vann noted that all the buildings would
be sprinkled and fire hydrants installed on sit at the request of the fire department.
Haneman asked about the drainage funds the applicant paid toward this
engineering and asked if anyone else doing development on Mill Street would be
assessed. Adeh responded that the entire area called the drainage impact zone for
Aspen Mountain was over a million square feet; the future storm water quality
management ponds would be established with a task force to identify a plan to
implement those needed. Adeh said that this development's impacts were
calculated as a ratio over the entire corridor surface area. Haneman asked where
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -Februaof 5, 2002
the top and bottom of the million square feet was located. Adeh replied that it
began at the Rio Grande Place to the Top of Mill Lot.
Erickson stated that the city quantifies runoff or mudflow according to a one-year,
five-year, ten-year, fifty-year and hundred-year event; he asked what other levels
of mitigation do the developers have to meet. Adeh replied that with high-density
developments such as this, the five-to-ten-year storm return frequency was used to
collect the drainage runoff to the pipe.
P~uth Kruger asked if the flows would be taken care of with this plan. Adch
answered that hydrology was not an exact science but based upon the experience
and other communities by relative comparison, the engineers developed equations
to identify storm events and were able to compute projections., Adeh said that
based upon those methods they have tried to mitigate thc impacts.
Myrin asked if any trees could be moved to another location. Flynn replied that
the tress from this site could not be relocated because of thc make up of the soil;
the root ball may be contaminated with lead and heavy metal. Myrin asked if the
money for the mitigation could be used on this site. Flynn replied that the way that
code read was that the mitigation fees would be used in other parts in town because
some projects cannot be mitigated on site. Flynn stated that the on site that the
applicant was doing was considered as on-site mitigation.
Erickson inquired about the variances on lot 9. Jarman replied that there were 4
variances being requested. Minimum lot size of 2,794 square feet; 3-setback
variances: minimum front yard was 10, they proposed 8 feet, side yard minimum
was 5 feet they requested 3 feet and the rear was 10 feet with 3 feet requested.
Jarman stated that parcel 9 would have a deed-restriction memorialized as a garage
only. Erickson asked the applicant for thc history of this parcel. Vann responded
that Savannah sold lot 2, the Summit Place Condominiums and was required to
provide parking on the opposite side of Summit Street as a condition to the
amendments of approval. Vann said that Summit Place built their garage on
Savannahs property; Four Peaks purchased the property and did not want to own
the land under the Summit Place garage~ Vann said that the property was being
conveyed with thc restrictions of it remaining a garage in perpetuity; they can't tear
it down and use the square footage to enlarge the units and the setbacks were the
minimum size to allow for maintenance around thc building. Vann said the
setbacks were part of the PUD agreement and this would be a separately conveyed
parcel to Summit Place Condominiums. Jarman noted that this was condition 21 in
the resolution.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5~ 2002
Kruger asked if there were retaining walls on parcels 4, 5 and 6. Vann answered
that the were retaining walls that were part of' the over all drainage plan to deflect
and channel potential mudflows to the street corridor as Nick described. Vann said
that they would be built with each individual lot and recorded as part of the
drainage plan.
Erickson inquired about the addition of the ADU to the duplex. Vann replied that
the original application required the single-family duplexes to comply with the
ADU Or cash in lieu provisions under growth management exemption. Vann said
that this ADU was not subject to the new provisions; the other lots will be required
to comply with the ADU provision in effect at the time of the permit but this
decision was made before the ADU provisions were changed. Erickson asked if it
was below grade on Lot 3 and asked where in the building it was located and
accessed. Vann replied that it was below grade. Golumbus stated that the ADU
was 435 square feet with access from the stairs down into the lightwell with a
small patio; it was in the back of the below grade space on the northeast corner.
Chris Hamilton, public, stated that he was the property manager for the Aspen
Lodging Company and expressed concern for the easements and trail. Vann
answered that the easement for the trail was not done on the other side and until
then the trail could not be completed. Hamilton said that the construction traffic
was of concern going up and down the road and the removal of the contaminated
soils. Vann replied that they were required to have a construction management
plan that addressed construction staging, trips, mud racks installed, dust and
erosion control.
Erickson said that overall he did not have problems with the application with the
exception of 6 points. He said that the trail easement improvement on the east side
should be memorialized so that the opportunity was not lost to collect the funding
for it. He noted there was a design problem for access to the lot 1 townhouses, the
one-way access in and one-way out with that grade. Erickson stated the ADU was
subterranean and he would not vote for it. He said that the Parcel 9 variances were
supposed to be minimal and the rear yard setback requirements could be met; it
was the applicant's land and they could make it fit. Erickson said that he could not
approve a rear yard setback for parcel 9. Erickson said that the zoning was a big
problem for him and he recalled that the zoning change was to be discussed at
final. He said that they were not building condominiums but basically building
luxury second homes and that he did not feel that it fit the LTR zone district.
Erickson asked for the impacts of the R-15 zone; he said that he could not vote for
an LTR zone at this time. He said that he did not agree with the explanation of the
Wheeler view plane based on the discussions from In-fill.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
Buettow said that the overall project was nice but disappointing not to see the final
designs of parcels 4,5, 6, 7 and 8~ lie said that the driveway for parcel 1 was
questionable with snow and ice. He said the ADU was a shoebox and could be a
lot better. Buettow encouraged the applicants to protect the upper parcels from
avalanches and make the drainage, debris and snow and ice removal off the
property as efficiently as possible. Buettow excused himself at 6:45.
Myrin said that he agreed with Ron on trail easement financing being documented
with the property. Myrin also agreed with Ron on the rezoning of the open space
to LTR not being a restrictive enough zone. Myrin stated concern for the view
plane also as town changed to loose site of the mountains.
Haneman said that maybe there should be a sunset provision that if the trail wasn't
completed in 5 years, then a set sum of money would go to the city. The other
commissionerS agreed with the sunset provision. Haneman said that he had the
same problem with parcel 9 that Ron did. Haneman said that he saw the LTR
problem coming when the code amendment was requested to vary LTR larger than
6,000 square feet. He said that what was appropriate for the site was important not
what was appropriate for the development. He said that LTR seemed appropriate.
Haneman said that the ADU was aposter chi'Id for every reason why the
commission changed the ADU requirements.
Kruger stated that she knew that this was a difficult site with environmental
concerns; she felt it was great that the soils would be taken care of. She said that
she liked the open space and trails with a funding or sunset provision. Kruger said
that the city has done a thorough job on the drainage and slopes. She said the rear
set back on the Summit garage was a problem. She said that it was a nice project
with the exception of the ADU.
Cohen said that he would go with the engineering and landscape recommendations
from Nick and Brian. Cohen voiced concern for the ADU, the requirements were
changed for a good reason even though the applicant began under different
guidelines, since they were far from braking ground it seemed wrong not to include
the changes to the ADU program in this ADU design. He said that the patio will
get no sun in the winter and just fill with snow; the new ADU requirements should
apply to this ADU. Cohen said that he was not 100% comfortable with the LTR
zone on the entire property. He said that parcel 9 was an equitable decision
between the applicant and the Summit Place and a friendly decision on both sides.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting until 7:30. Bert
Myrin seconded. APPROVED 4-1.
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -Februatw 5, 2002
The East Trail. The commission and applicant agreed that there would be a
provision for payment with a sunset clause. Ohlson summarized that at a 5-year
timeline the trail would either be constructed or the monies would be turned over
to the city with documentation and recordation so the homeowners associations'
were aware of their responsibilities. Vann noted that there was no obligation until
the easements were in place. Vann stated that the concern was that there was a
financial mechanism in place to build the trail.
ADU. Kruger said that she did not think that there was much that could be done
about the ADU. Erickson and Cohen disagreed and stated that the alternative was
that cash-in-lieu could be paid instead or the ADU could be built above ground.
Jarman said that the standards were met. Cohen stated that this was a PUD and the
standards could vary. Erickson stated that the ADU had to be in conformance with
the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Erickson stated that this ADU was
added after conceptual and if it had been part of the conceptual, he said that he
would not have approved it. Haneman said that he found that it complied with the
requirements but did not like it. 3 of the commissioners were for the ADU as
proposed and 2 were against the ADU as proposed.
View Plane. Erickson said that there was not enough information for him to make
a good decision on the view plane issue. Vann stated that the view plane
intersected the ground before this project; everything around them was in the view
plane. Kruger said that she agreed with Eric that the development was up against
the mountain and it would not block views from downtown. 2 commissioners
found issues with the view planes and 3 had no problems.
Parcel 9. Erickson said that it would be fair to the applicant to grant the variances
on the 2 sides that do not offer a choice but not on the other 2 sides (the rear and
one side). Vann said that they were not creating a nOn-conforming lot because the
PUD established all of the dimensional requirements with the underlying zone
district as a guide. Erickson noted that the setbacks were established for safety
reasons; he asked the reason for the variances for these setbacks. Vann responded
that the primary reason was that they did not re-design the townhomes but decided
to convey the parcel to the Summit Place Homeowners Association. Cohen asked
if the structure was not given to Summit Place, would any variances be needed.
Vann replied that no variances would be required. Kruger stated that in view of
this information, that it was one story and backed up to a retention wall, she said
that she had no problem with this issue. 2 commissioners had problems with this
issue and 3 did not:
In and Out Access for Lot 1. Cohen asked if this was an issue. Vann responded
that the access would have to comply with the driveway standards with a more
12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Minutes -February 5, 2002
direct turn to the street; this wasn't the final design, engineering will sign off on
the final driveway.
Rezoning to LTR. Erickson voiced concern for the mount of LTR when rezoned.
Vann responded that under the current underlying zone districts there was amPle
FAR but they cannot comply with multiple zone districts because the code read
that the most strident zone district applied and that meant the Conservation Zone,
which would allow one unit at an unlimited size. Erickson noted that this project
has evolved over the last 15 years; there were multi-family units in the area that
were tourist rental properties. Erickson said that these were not tourist
accommodations and did not fit under the LTR zone district. Vann said that the
issue of residential on Lot 3 was addressed with council and part and parcel of the
overall approval for Lot 3 and Lot 5. Vann said the basic idea of this proposal was
approved by Council conceptually and the amended Conceptual also was approved~
Vann said that they were not going to revisit the concept that this should be
residential; he said that if it were zoned R-15 then they would have to request
variances from all the dimensional requirements.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the meeting for another 10
minutes. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 4-1.
Jarman noted the changes to the resolution would include the sunset clause for the
trail, access for Lot 1 with an engineering approval.
Haneman asked for the best argument to vote for the project. Kruger replied that
parcel 9 did not visually impact anyone with the garage set backs. Vann stated that
if the setbacks were not granted then the parcel could not be conveyed.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve P&Z Resolution #06, series
2002 recommending approval for the final PUD DeveloPment Plan,
Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special
Review, GMQS Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review and Rezoning for
Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD also known as the Top of Mill site
with the conditions stated in the Resolution as amended. Ron Erickson
seconded. Roll call vote: Itaneman, yes; Myrin, yes; Erlckson, no;
Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes. APPROVED 4-1.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Ruth
Kruger seconded. APPROVE 5-0.
~ckie Lothian, DeputY City Clerk
13