HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030218 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS.....: ................................................................................ 2
~-, TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION and TIMESHARE EXEMPTION. 2
MINUTEs .......... ~.:....~ ....... :..~ .......... ~......::.....:.:..~.. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................... ~ .............................................................. ..~.2
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD ....... . ........ , ........................... ~ ........ .............. . ................... ~ ......... .....:.:..~....: 3
DANCING BEAR - 411 SOUTH MONARCH LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN
VIEW PLANE, SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE .~..: ........ ;; ......................... : ............................................................ 3
PARCEL 4, TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE and DRAC VARIANCES ..................................................... 12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Februarv 18, 2003
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Mseting
Room. Dylan Johns. Jack Johnson, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre were present.
Roger Haneman arrived at 4:35 p.m. and Ruth Kruger at 6:05 p.m. Staff in
attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Julie Ann Woods, James
Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
COMM1SSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre asked what the schedule was for the replacement of P&Z members.
Jackie Lothian replied that Council would be reviewing the applications soon, but
that there was only one applicant for P&Z to date.
Tygre said that the Residences at Little Nell resolution and the public comments
for the Dancing Bear would probably run fairly long; the Tipple Lodge might be
tabled and continued.
Steve Falander, public, stated that he delivered a letter to Scott Woodford today,
which was not directly related to the Little Nell or the Tipple Lodge but did not
think that it was a good plan to see multiple projects on one site considered at the
same time. Falander said that it was permitted today but it doesn't seem to be a
good policy because it could confuse the issues. Tygre asked that Mr. Falander's
letter be included in the March 4th packet.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION~ SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION and
TIMESHARE EXEMPTION
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the public hearing on the
Tipple Lodge GMQS exemption, subdivision and timeshare to March 4,
2003; seconded by Roger Itaneman. APPROVED 5-0.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Itaneman moved to approve the minutes from
February 4, 2003 and January 21, 2003; seconded by Eric Cohen.
APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF cONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jack Johnson stated a conflict and stepped down for the Residences at Little Nell;
he would be available for the Dancing Bear hearing if the Assistant Attorney
deemed no conflict.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION~ February 18, 2003
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/03/03; 01/07/03, 01/21/03, 01/21/03,
02/04/03):
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Residences at Little
Nell with the review of the resolution #4. Roger Haneman stated his concerns
should be included in the changes in the resolution in the WHEREAS clauses.
Scott Woodford stated that on page 2 of the resolution the specific references for
the square footage and number of affordable units on site were to be removed
because that did not correspond directly with the commission's direction. The
direction fi.om P&Z was to reduce the FAR; the paragraph would not include the
square footage specifically. Sunny Vann responded that the applicant did not have
a problem with the elimination of the specific number for FAR. David Hoefer
asked the applicant if 109,500 square feet was the maximum. Vann replied that
the WHEREAS could include what was requested and then the conditions could
reflect the commission's requests for the reduction in height and square footage.
Hoefer stated that the information was far more binding in the conditions than the
WHEREAS causes. Brooke Peterson asked if there were other changes.
Woodford responded that the rezoning condition was a one to one FAR; the
condition makes reference that the underlying zone district be used as a guide in
determining the floor area ratio. Vann responded that it may not be exactly one to
one but would be more closely aligned with that zoning category. Vann asked for
a few clarifications in the WHEREAS clauses and a minor change to condition 4a
adding in an attempt to the last sentence between ... Condominium Association in
an attempt tofind .... The commission requested an email of the resolution for
agreement by the commissioners.
MOTION: Roger I-Ianeman moved to approve Resolution #4, series
2003 for a conceptual planned unit development, conceptual time-share,
conceptual planned area amendment for the Residences at Little Nell
with the amended and added conditions and reviewed by P&Z
members by email; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 4-0.
CONTNUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/04/03):
DANCINGBE~3R ~ ~il3OUTH MON~ltCIff LODGE i~RESERVAT~ON
PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN ViEW PLANE, SUBDIVISION,
TIMESHARE
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Dancing Bear. Tygre
explained that there was an overview presented by staff and the applicant at the
last meeting and this meeting would provide the time for clarification on the
g" project from staff and the applicant as well as comrmssioner and public comments.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 2003
James Lindt stated MSE Aspen Holdings, the applicant proposed a 10-unit time-
share lodge where the current Aspen Manor lodge was located. Each unit
contained 3 bedrooms with lock-off capabilities for one bedroom of each unit.
Lindt noted that the first floor of the project was to contain a lobby area with a
front desk as well as a bar and grill area in the southeast comer ofthe proposal and
one unit. The 2~d, 3rd and 4th floors each contained three units each with a similar
configuration; three bedrooms with one being a lock-off. There were four full
floors and a fifth partial floor, which contains a gazebo area with a recreationa!
facility (an exercise room an office area). The proposal goes below grade three
floors with a ramp to the parking area on the first level with a games and
recreation room, a computer library area and theatre; the site slopes down to the
west therefore the garage was entered from that point. The next floor down was
the actual parking area with 24 parking spaces and the third floor below grade
there was storage for each estate owners, a meeting room and additional storage
areai
Lindt said the proposed height was at 63 feet, which was calculated from the
midpoint of the gazebo area on the roof; a drawing of the proposal was presented.
Staff felt the benefits to the community were vitality to a site that was basically
vacant for 5 years; a lodge use was proposed rather than townhomes; they were
fairly environmentally sensitive in constructing the project with LEAD
Certification (a national green building program) and will provide a fleet of hybrid
electric/gas vehicles for the guests;
Staffhad over-riding concerns about the height and massing of the proposal; the
site was appropriate for infill development however, it was much larger than infill
height recommendations (52 foot height limitation, 3 stories with a partial 4th floor
and 45 feet for a 4 story building). The proposal was 63 feet with the majority of
the building at 56 feet throughout the property; on the west end that was about 10-
18 feet over the recommendation of the in fill group. Staff requested that the
applicant reduce the height to 52 feet throughout the property and restudy the mass
of the actual structure by stepping back the upper floors or providing additiOnal
differentiation in the roofline itself. Staff felt the combination of height reduction
as well as breaking up ~fi~S~S ~0uld allow for it to be ~)~e ~rnp~tlbi~ With the
2-3 story buildings in the surrounding area. staff did not feel that this proposal
meets the PUD review standards with regards to compatibility with the
surrounding structures.
Lindt stated that the Mountain View Plane was already encroached upon and that
that was met. Lindt said that the applicant met the propose for mandatory physical
and operational elements required by the time-share section of the code with a
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 2003
staffed front desk, recreational facilities, restaurant and bar and proposed to meet
the time:Share marketing standards. Lindt noted that the Housing Board reviewed
the GMQS exemptions for lodge preservation and recommended 5.75 employees
be mitigated for. Lindt said that the applicant consented to the 5.75 mitigation
figure but have proposed to meet this through cash-in-lieu or buy-downs within
the city of Aspen; there was no employee housing proposed on site. Staff would
like to see some employees housed on site but realize that the lot size of 12,000
square feet might be difficult and still be financially viable.
Lindt said that the fire department would like the pool located on the roof to be
moved further away from the parapet wall on the roof for purposes of getting
firefighters on the roof if a safety situation should occur. In addition the
community development engineer requested a revised parking garage ramp to a
21-foot width instead of the proposed 18-foot width, which was required by the
international engineers. Lindt summarized that the height and mass concerns were
too great for the benefits proposed and recommend that the height be brought
down to 52 feet throughout the property. Also Lindt said that the applicant should
break up the mass as pushing the upper floors back from the faqade. Lindt asked
P&Z to request that the applicant revise the plans and continue the public hearing;
there was a revised resolution to address these concerns.
Mitch Haas stated that the parking garage was 19 parking spaces with another 5 on
grade off of the alley. Haas said that the positive attributes of the project were the
removal of the Aspen Manor Lodge, which has been an eyesore and negative
message; there were 10-20 hotbeds added to the Aspen bed base; there will be
high occupancy rates as a time-share development with repeat visitors; there will
be nightly rental opportunities with the lock-off units; there will be a presence on
the comer of Monarch with an appropriate place for a new taller development at
the base area lodging district; it will reinvigorate the pedestrian and auto
streetscape; the lounge and bar would provide a more lively streetscape. Haas
stated that by providing this stable lodge use kept it the single-family residential
encroachment out of this lodge area. Haas spoke about the hybrid gas/electric
vehicles as precedent setting along with the green building construction. Haas
said that they would do buy-down units in the city limits as a green alternative to
new development and no new growth. Haas explained the formula for the
employee mitigation; he felt the 5.75 number was generous. Haas noted that over
the first 5 years after construction this project would generate 1.2 million dollars
in tax revenues for the city split up between the 3 tax bases (RHETT, property and
lodging and bed tax). Haas stated that this was an economically sustainable
project; it was self-sufficient and will provide for its own needs through the
assessment of homeowners driers to meet the continuing needs over the years.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18~ 2003
Haas stated that the location was with utilities and services in place; reduced
automobile dependency because of the location; parks recreation and open space
amenities were readily available and in abundance; shopping, dining and
entertainment were in walking distance and the project furthers the goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan' with respect to redevelopment of small lodges.
Haas responded to the height and mass issues by commenting that the building
would retain its existing street orientations on Durant and Monarch Street with a
strong architectural presence on the comers with front doors on Monarch Street.
Haas stated that the perceived mass was broken up with several forms or modules
on the exterior using materials and treatments with an inclusion of balconies,
variation of window forms, shapes and recesses. The rooftop gazebo would only
be seen from a distance with a 3 foot 6 inch parapet wall around the perimeter of
the entire structure; the gazebo would be built out of glass or transparent materials.
Haas stated that the proposed height was misleading largely due to the topography
of the property but the basic height on the street front was a 48-foot height to the
top of the parapet wall on Monarch and Durant, 45 feet to the rooftop at the
comer. Haas said that the proposed project was 45 to 48 feet for all four stories;
they had difficulty finding out really what the inappropriateness was for the
height.
Haas stated that the view plane was a non-issue because it was a function of
mapping and has no effect in reality. Haas said ~hat the nouon this property was in
a transition lodging area was an erroneous statement in the staff memo: this
property was included in the LTR zoning, which extended a full 2 blocks past
Durant Avenue to the south including this project, the Limelight and Snowflake.
Haas mentioned other projects uphill of this site receiving approvals for
renovations and expansions for a full 5-stories for the Mountain Chalet and the
Hyatt Grand Aspen height limit was set at 46 or 48 feet. Haas said that the St.
Regis was 7 stories and pointed out the various buildings that were 4 and 5 stories.
The applicant provided a model of the project. David Brown clarified that was 45
feet to the mp of the roof from the comer on a diagonally sloping site from the
comer of Monarch and Durant to a low point (7 feet lower) on the northwest alley
comer at 52 feet high. Brown said that the code limit was 42 inches and the
parapet wall was 36 inches with a 4-inch space and a 2-inch metal guardrail,
which could be transparent to reduce the apparent height but architecturally it
worked better with the pipe guardrail. Brown said because of the sloping site it
was 62 feet.
Roger Haneman stated that as manager 0fthe St. Moritz Lodge there was a
management agreement with the Snowflake Inn, which was 2 blocks from this
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18~ 2003
project but did not feel that he had a conflict with this project review~ David
Hoefer responded that as long as he remained open minded on the project, then it
was okay.
Eric Cohen expressed concern with the reliance on the proposed in fill zoning
changes when they were not adopted and was being reviewed with council tonight
across the hall. Lindt replied that staffwas not relying on'the proposed legislation
but the research that the infill group did with recommendations in regards to the
height limit throughout town. David Hoefer clarified that Infill has not been
approved and an applicant cannot speculate if it will pass. Cohen noted tha! if
Infill was not approved then small variances become large variances.
Jack Johnson asked if staff suggested that the applicant follow the Infill Report.
Lindt responded that staff suggested that the height be reduced but the applicant
wished to proceed with the plans as submitted for the public hearing process.
Johnson asked for clarification on the discrepancy in numbers on the employee
generation. Lindt explained that the numbers were referrals from different
departments with the housing board suggested 5.75 employees being mitigated.
Johnson asked how many employees would actually be working. Haas replied that
there would be a mix of employees working for a managing agency and employees
specifically generated by the lodge was 60% of the employees. Johnson asked
about the credit received for the Aspen Manor Lodge. Lindt answered the credit
was for the 23 lodge rooms. Johnson noted that the square footage of the old
Aspen Manor was 12,000 or 18,000 square feet. Brown responded that this was a
different animal; the suites were 2800 square feet each, which included 3
bedrooms each. Johnson reiterated that the question still remained on the number
of employees generated. Brown replied that a quick staffing analysis was
somewhere between 9 and 12. Haneman asked if within that employee generation
number was included the restaurant operation. Haas answered that the
restaurant/grill was looked at separately with the commercial aspects. Brown
clarified that it would be run more like the Hotel Lenado.
Dylan Johns asked the thickness of the articulation on the faqade. DaVid Brown
answered that it was about 2½ to 3 feet with the windows. Johns asked about the
differentiation in the materials. Brown replied that they were trying to create a
significant amount of articulation on the photo realistic elevation drawings in the
packets focusing on rusticated sandstone. Johns asked the size of the conference
area for its functional purpose and how would those rooms be made available for
public use. Brown replied that the 2 rooms were small for groups of 10-25 people;
they haven't worked out the specifics.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 2003
Public Comments:
Carl Levy, public, president of the Southpoint Homeowners Association, stated
that there were 3 stories and 30 units in the building. Levy believed that the
proposal would completely dominate, overshadow and overpower all of the
neighboring buildings; he noted it could be seen on the model. Levy believed it
would be inconsistent, in terms of style and size, with all of the new construction
on Durant Avenue; it would completely obliterate the views of Aspen Mountain
for the Limelight Lodge and the view of Smuggler Mountain for the Southpoint
Condominium. Levy believed because of the size of the excavation relative to the
setback, it would cause unacceptable interference with pedestrian and vehicular
traffic during construction. Levy believed that because of the downward slope of
Durant as it goes westward from the Durant/Monarch intersection, that this will
greatly exaggerate the overwhelming height of the building as compared to the
new 2-story Durant Townhouses; this proposal will substantially reduce the
property values for the owners of Southpoint Condominiums, the new Durant
townhouses and the Limelight Lodge. Levy noted that several of the own. ers were
present and may want to make additional comments. Levy said that they concur
with the staff comments on the need to reduce the mass of the building, the height
of the building and step back the upper levels.
Edward Hansen, public, president of Town Place Condominium located the
building on the model; the building was about 5 years old and conformed to the
zoning laws and had setbacks with gardens. Hansen said that the building ran
from Monarch to the proposed new structure. Hansen agreed that the building
should be setback and lowered. Hansen asked if the giant spruce trees would be
kept and asked about the one on Monarch. Brown replied that the intent was to
keep the trees that the city forester wanted them to keep; the one on Monarch
would be cut down with mitigation. Hansen stated that the 4 townhomes were
built with the 5th building as employee housing with 5 units required; their
townhomes had parking for 2 cars per house with 3 for employees. Hansen noted
that 20 more cars would be added by this proposed project on a dirt one-car wide
alley; he requested the 21~foot wide entrance for the parking be a requirement.
George Fesus, public, unit owner in Southpoint said that the model showed how
overwhelming the structure is and had difficulty with the classification of a small
lodge. Fesus said that most worrisome was what the applicant said about setting
the standard for redevelopment and urged the commission to stay within the scope
of the current guidelines and neighborhood.
Nancy Kullgren, public, Southpoint owner stressed that the coruer was very busy
with buses and that there needed to be a pull in space for cars, service vehicles and
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18~ 2003
~ransportation vehicles. Brown responded that there were 5 pull in spaces along
the alley; there was street frontage similar to the Jerome. Lenado or Sardy.
Mack Bolens, public, stated that he did not live anywhere near this project but this
project was a horrible precedent to set with almost twice as much as the existing
zoning allowed. Bolens said that it would start to look like Vail.
Buddy Bates, public, Southpoint unit owner asked if a shawdow zone had been
determined and how it will affect Wagner Park in summer and winter. Lindt
replied that staff has not determined a shadow zone. Haas answered that Monarch
was a 75-foot right-of-way and with the trees would probably have a negligible
effect on the park. Bates commented that there were incredible vistas from
Wagner Park and would hate to see them blocked out any more than they were.
Pat Smith, public, Aztec Homeowners president said they were at the corner of
Dean and Monarch. Smith noted that 10 to 15 years ago he went through the
process with the Roberts hotel and the Ritz with the loss of views; he said that
they lost their view plane when the Ritz was built and they only see brick now.
Smith said that the height was an issue and that all the buildings around could be
redeveloped.
Dale Paas, public, Limelight Lodge stated that he had conflicting thoughts with
appreciating that the ownerof this property was attempting to enhance the corner
and saw the economic benefit of the area but them were grave concerns about the
height casting shadows on their swimming pool area. Paas said that he wished
that they knew what all the ramifications were going to be after the fact.
David Hoefer noted that Commissioner Kruger was present and could fully
participate in discussion but if there were avote tonight for action on this hearing,
which was unlikely, she could not vote tonight but could vote in the future if she
read the minutes on what transpired to this point in time.
Cohen stated that his feeling on the project was for the most part it looked like a
great project and was certainly a property that needed to be redeveloped but it was
too high and would have felt more~comfortable even coming close to that height if
infill had passed. Cohen questioned the hybrid cars, although a wonderful idea
but not necessary because the people who buy these units would not be the type of
person utilizing a little hybrid vehicle. Cohen said the current zomng did not
allow this height.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18~ 2003
Johnson said that there was very little public benefit in this project; it did not
follow the Aspen Area Community Plan because it did not provide employee
housing on site. Johnson thought that the employee generation was way off; he
did not understand how this came under lodge preservation because this was not a
small lodge being preserved. Johnson stated that if infill passed then the height
would not be a problem, but that has not occurred. Johnson said that this did not
enhance the small lodge because it did not serve the same public as the Aspen
Manor did; the employee housing should be a first priority for the applicant on
their own site instead of the city being tied to the employee housing inventory.
Haneman agreed with Johnson's concerns on the height and reliance of the infill
legislation passing. Haneman said that the measurement of height should be on
the Limelight side; the number of keys was a disappointment with a building so
large with. so few keys was remarkable and that there was a 3,000 square foot
timeshare unit market niche that needed to be filled. Haneman noted that this
project did not meet the 23 keys that the Aspen Manor had and the employee
housing being on site was of also of importance.
Johns appreciated the green~architectural methodology with the hybrid car fleet
and the buy downs but had similar concerns about not housing any employees on
site because of the size of the project and were not any environmentally less
efficient then by putting them into a building which was being constructed. Johns
was disappointed that the roo£top amenities were not being considered for the
public because it would be a unique attraction was the serious vitality and interest
for Aspen. Johns was not in favor of 4 stories here but would support 3 stories
with a 4th story setback rooftop amenity, the overall perception was not as great as
the additional floor. Johns said that there was some potential for an open rail as
opposed to ~he 42 inch parapet wall and rail; there could be a parapet curve in that
rail brought back off that street so nothing would be pushed onto the street from
the roof. Johns struggled with the overall appearance from the street while
appreciating the faCade articulation with the materials and pop-outs along the
street facades; the northwest comer was very exposed with a lack of treatment
from the massive wall, which was very visible.
Haneman questioned the higher occupancy brought by time-shares coming here in
the off-season after buying a $900,000. time-share unit and requested marketing
studies showing this. Brown said there were the sales plans that the Timbers had.
Tygre said that the commission comments were concerned with the height and ~-",
massing, the occupancy and employee generation. Tygre agreed with Roger
Haneman that this was a very large building, which only provided 10-20 hotbeds.
10
ASPEN PLANNI~qG & ZON1NGCO3I~SSIOI~ February 18, 2003
Tygre noted that Jack Johnson's point about the replacement o£1odge
~' preservation, this was not an A~pen Man°r but more like a private residence club,
which was not necessarily a bad thing but a different type of operation. Tygre
stated that employee generation has remained a problem for her in determining the
numbers for each application. Tygre felt there were ways that the apparent height
of the building could be reduced to make it more palatable to the neighbors. Tygre
shared Dylan Johns concern about the northwest corner and the impacts o£the
building seemed to be the greatest where they should be the least. Tygre stated
that she like the building in general with the articulation. Tygre agreed with
Nancy Kullgren about the drop off en?ance because it was an important part ora
lodging facility.
If the infill guidelines passed; the commissioners views were as follows:
Haneman stated that if infill passed the height concerns remained. Johnson stated
that he would follow whatever the underlying guidelines were. Johns stated that
he would follow the infill guidelines if passed but would still change the heights
on this project significantly. Kruger said that she would follow whatever the infill
guidelines were. Juli¢ Ann Woods stated that Council would have a public
hearing (2nd March meeting) on the infll guidelines. Tygre said that 4 of the
commissioners w~t~Id follow the infill guidelines if approved. Cohen said as the
code was now he could not support the height but if infill passed he would be
much more inclined to see this or something close to this project as acceptable.
Ruth Kruger was opposed to that northwest comer with the impacts on the
neighbors. Johns spoke about this being a sort of transition area with sensitivity to
what it backs up against considering those height limits; Kruger and Haneman
agreed.
Johnson asked if the LTR zoning became Lodge under the new zoning. Lindt
replied that the entire Lodge Tourist Residential gets wrapped into Lodge.
Johnson stated that they needed a minimum of 24 units to be exempt. Haas
answered that this was a PUD and not an infill project. Johnson retorted that he
would need to be impressed beyond this presentation. Haas explained that they
did not apply based upon something that wasn't adopted and were not asking for
variances but to establish the dimensional requirements through a PUD. there were
technical differences but there were differences. Johnson replied that the
differences were substantive.
Haas stated that the project was submitted a while back and then they waited for
the time-share or fractional fee regulations so they don't want to impede their
progress or momentum in the process to sit back and do no~hing and waist for city
council to be finished reviewing the infll regulations. Haas said that they have
II
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 2003
valuable feedback to keep the process going. Hoefer stated that the continuation
for this public hearing would probably be March 18th. Tygre clarified that the
commission's holding back because if infill doesn't pass then the height limits
remain at 28 feet, then this proposal is more than twice as high as the current
allowable height limit.
Brown spoke of the quality of consumer expectations to cater to the St. Regis,
Little Nell or Jerome consumers, which this project was geared toward. Haas and
Brown explained the product and experience for this project in strengthening the
local lodging community.
Haneman spoke about the importance of the lodging base in town in relation to the
commercial core and occupancy rates, percentages and how those occupancy
figures were affected by year round occupancy versus the large hotels closing for a
month in the off season. Haneman stoa[ed ~hat for a space this close to town, lots of
beds were needed; he wanted to see more keys. Haneman stated that the larger the
unit doesn't mean the larger amount of money accrued to the town beyond the
sales tax from the sale. Haas replied that this project was more shares than just a
second home on Red Mountain; he said even if there were a small percent of
occupancy it would be more than what the Aspen Manor waS providing. Brown
noted whatever the occupancy rate would be, it still was significantly more than
the three townhomes that were allowed by right on this site.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the
Dancing Bear to March 18, 2003 for minor PUD approval, rezoning to
include Lodge Preservation and PUD overlay, the property was
currently zoned Lodge Tourist Residential (LTR), time-share and as
well as Mountain View Plane Review and Subdivision; seconded by
Roger Haneman. APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PARCEL 4~ TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE and DRAC VARIANCES
Jasmine opened the public hearing for Parcel 4, Top of Mill 8040 Greenline and
DRAC variances, which will have to be continued.
MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the public hearing for
Parcel 4, Top of Mill 8040 and DRAC variances to March 4, 2003;
seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
~k~e Lothian, Deputy C~ty Clerk
12