Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040302ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02; 2004 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ......................................................................................... 2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ....................................................... 2 WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT 517 Park Circle ........................................................... 2 LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD ....................................................................... 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P&Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of"actual use". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zone district was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson said that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being Used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi-family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it and coming back to the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from january 13, February 3 and 4, 2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT - 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD amendment; public notice was received on February 17th. Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R-15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, Which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single-family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR allowed for the lot siZes in the zone district on page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R-15 zone district allowed 15,000 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at l 1,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,428 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR. Woodford stated that ifP&Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee-in-lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor area be less than the floor area allowed in the R- 15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area because there was a constant flow of traffic and it would be an improvement very aesthetically done. Burek said they were building a green structure. Roger Haneman asked the FAR for one home with a single lot of 22,000 square feet. Scott Woodford answered the allowable square footage was 4,920. Dylan Johns asked what would be the actual allowable floor area for that lot Size (11,237 square feet) that the applicant was proposing, what wOuld be allowed under the zoning. Woodford said there was a different floor area based on a lot size in the code minus the slope reduction, which was the number in the chart (2,880 square feet). Johns asked if the slope reduction applies to the lot before the lot split. Woodford replied that was correct then staff averaged the floor area between the two lots. Jasmine Tygre noted the numbers were troUblesome; there were a lot of numbers with three resulting FARs. Tygre said her question was similar because on the chart the resulting FAR, for example, there was a 15,000 square foot lot with an allowable floor area of 4500 square feet and the resulting FAR would be .30; she asked why they didn't take that amount and apply it to the actual lot sizes. Tygre noted there was a sliding scale that gave preference to smaller lots. Woodford replied that the lot sizes included the slope reduction in the FAR calculations; one ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 lot was fiat and the total was averaged at 2,880 each. Tygre noted the sidewalk provision was not specified in the resolution. Woodford replied that it was on the plans and could be added to the resolution. Tygre requested the condition be added. Jack Johnson asked the purpose behind slope reduction. Woodford responded to reduce any amount of FAR on steep slopes and encourage building on the flat parts of the sites and discourage building on steep slopes; there was a maximum reduction of 25%. Johnson asked if the lot next door was owned by the city and in the county and what was the square footage. Clauson replied it was in the county and owned by the county; it was 6,000 square feet. Johnson asked if there was an attempt to purchase from the county. Clauson answered there has been some discussion with the county but there has been no resolution. Johnson said if it were purchased then the lots would be less short of the 15,000 square feet than it is today. Clauson replied that was correct; there would be a considerable amount of process before that lot could be added to the PUD and this would need to annexed into the city so it was prohibitive to this application because the Detweilers need a home. Johnson said there were no zones between R-6 and R-15. There were no public comments but there were 3 letters entered into the public record (1) Gerry Wendell supporting the lot split (2) H. Montgomery Loud supported the lot spit (3) Charles Rowers in favor of the lot split. Ruth Kruger said that this proposal was good for the neighborhood and will improve the overall look; she will support the proposal. Johns said that if they were putting in sidewalks they would be giving back to the community. Johns noted this neighborhood was surrounded by R-6 and RMF so he didn't see why they should have anything punitive; if they built a bigger house then they would have to pay the mitigation as stated in the code. John Rowland stated that he was in favor of all of the issues but felt a little uncomfortable with the numbers that staff suggested at 2880 square feet given the size of the lot and given the square footage that the applicant asked for. Johnson stated that he didn't see where anyone was being punished; if you don't have a big enough lot then you can't build that square footage, if you are in R-15 you need a 15,000 square foot lot. Johnson said that what was proposed was better than what exists; he could support the staff recommendation of dividing the duplex into two getting the 2880 square feet and he could support Jasmine's suggestion of using multiplier of .3 for the desirable FAR for a 15,000 square foot lot and to the lot sizes as proposed. Johnson asked if the slope reduction could be disregarded. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02~ 2004 Woodford replied that it could not. Johnson said that he was trying to compromise what staff suggested and the applicant requested; his figures were 3371 and 3428 square feet and with slope reduction it would be 2578 square feet. Haneman asked if R- 15 was the zone on the property when it was annexed intO the city. Allgaier answered yes. Haneman said that if you were looking at an empty lot with out the displacement of people and requested cutting the lot in half in the R-15 zone district, it wouldn't be allowed because the lots were 11,000 plus square feet. Haneman said that he was going along the lines where JaCk was with the FAR at somewhere in between the applicant's request and the staff recommendation but wasn't sure how to arrive at that number. Johnson explained the .30 calculations, which would be 3370.1 square feet and 3400 square feet. Haneman said that number was almost right on with the square footage of the home across the street, which is currently the in the area according the map. Jasmine was inclined to agree with Roger and Jack on the square footage becauSe these were two non-conforming lots, Which were smaller than what was allowed. David Hoefer noted that the language could read the number of square feet less the slope reduction calculated by staff Woodford suggested stating the FAR as supported by the commission. Steve Skadron said that the applicant did a good job of minimizing the impact on the property, which was a public benefit however he sees legitimacy in Roger and Jack's calculations but has an issue with not abiding by staff's numbers and setting precedent by manipulating numbers. Discussion: Johnson said they have come up with a middle ground between staff's recommendation and the applicant's request. Kruger said it was a compromise that fit into the neighborhood. Skadron noted it was based on .30 FAR. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #5, 2004for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a buildingpermit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: (a) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. (b) Both of the new single-family residences shah demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. (c) An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shah be submitted. (d) The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. ~ The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 located in the city right-of-way. (g) The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least lO feet from the property line. (h) The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. (i) All tap fees, impacts fees, and bUilding permit fees shah be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shah be recorded in the office of the Pitla'n 'County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26. 575. 020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing'the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of P® in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin · County subsequent to receipt ora development order, orprior to issuance ofa buildingpermit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall Construct a five (5)foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park CirCle for thePortion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/04, 01/06/04, 01/20,04, 02/03/04, 02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the LOdge at Aspen; Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland recused themselves. Scott Woodford handed out letters from the public that were received today. Tygre stated that the letters would be introduced into the record just prior to public comments. Woodford explained the conditions in the resolution have been fine tuned over the course of the public hearings. Through the course of the review from P&Z, staff and the public the impacts of the proposed building on some of the neighbors consequently a condition was structured required the applicant reduce the impacts to the neighbOrs (condition #4a). One of the conditions' was to reduce this 5-story 'portion down a story and remove the covered entryway in order to increase the setback. Woodford said the condition stated the areas closest to the property line be reduced in height and stepped back. A condition relates to Juan Street Affordable Housing with increased setbacks between the Lodge and the northwest comer of Juan Street Affordable Housing stepping back the fourth story to provide additional space between the structures. The bridge over Juan Street was a big concern and it was suggested to remove the bridge entirely or reduce the height of the bridge to one story to lessen the impacts. The safety of South Aspen Street was another concern but snow melting the street was not recommended by the city of 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Aspen because of the initial costs, the annual maintenance costs, utility costs for the operation of the facility and the physical constraints for the location of a 1,000 square f6ot building to house the equipment associated with the snowrnelt equipment and system. The massive use of energy goes against the City of Aspen energy conservation state, but that was a City Council decision. Woodford said that instead of snowmelt increased city street maintenance would be placed without chemical deicers, which would be a discussion by City Council (condition #4d). Woodford said condition #4e addressed the traffic mitigation plan. Conditions #5 (maintain height in the pool location), #6 (air space rights dealing with the bridge), #7 (Dean Avenue improvements with landscape and pedestrian connections), were new. Sunny Vann stated certain members of the public Would prefer the applicant construct the previously approved residential project with second home owner condominiums and affordable housing because it would have less of an impact on the neighborhood. Vann said the applicant continued to believe this is the right kind of project in the right location. Vann said they have listened to the comments made by the neighborhood and understand the degree of concern and are prepared to try and address those issues but he reiterated that they were committed to this project and will pursuit with council; the desire to build the hotel remains in the forefront as the applicant's objective. Vann said the conditions proposed by staff go to the heart of the various concerns that have been raised; they are prepared to go forward with the conditions as drafted. Vann said they have to address the building and it's adjacency to the Juan Street Affordable Housing. Vann noted it was clear that the bridge while essential to the function of this project was perhaps over scaled and need to go back and restudy how that would work as well. Vann said the issue of traffic management and accessibility of South Aspen Street is obviously one of concern however it was not un-resolvable and should not preclude a new accommodations at the base of Lift 1 A; they are committed to working with the city to find a way to solve the problem and have an obvious financial role to play in any improvements made to the street. Vann said they were prepared to impose traffic mitigation policies on their own operation to further facilitate and reduce the impacts to traffic. Vann stated the only issue that concerned the applicant was the conditiOn regarding the height restrictions that was a private covenant that runs with Mary Barbee so long as she owns her house. Vann said the only exceptions to those restrictions would be umbrellas or temporary structures around the pool that would be above the level of the terrace, which are precluded in the current set of protective covenants; their preference would be to have the plan approved with whatever restriction were already appropriate and if Mary Barbee ever sells her house then deals with any changes under the city's land use review process. Vann encouraged or requested the 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 commission to recommend approval with conditions, which allows them to move onto the next step at city council. Steve Skadron asked Sunny why with his depth of experience did he Propose a project with such excessive impacts on the neighbors, Juan Street and Lift One. Vann replied there were a variety of answers but in hindsight he would have perhaps crafted it in a different way; but in fairness to the applicant (there were multiple applicants involved) working to 'a very specific design program, which was promulgated by the perspective operators of this hotel in an attempt to come up with a functioning project on this site. Vann said they were somewhat concerned about what was going on with the in fill ordinance and they need to fine- tune the project. Roger Haneman asked about condition #4g. Woodford replied the sidewalk would be in the right-of-way. Vann answered as a concept it was acceptable to the applicant. Dylan Johns asked the thought behind condition #4f. Woodford replied it was a concern generated from staff that the masonry walls were not pedestrian friendly and were too massive so that condition would have the applicant look at a re- design and improve the pedestrian experience. Johns inquired about the conceptual recommended language in general. Woodford replied the idea was to be general and have the applicant come back with the specifics. Tygre asked what needs to be accomplished_at the conceptual level based upon the conditions mentioned particularly the ones that reduce the impacts to the neighbors with the discussion of reductions. Tygre noted the second whereas in the resolution proposes that the commission approve 204,500 square feet and what she doesn't understand is that motion's intent was that they can still build that 204,500 square feet but just have it arranged differently or does it propose they build that many square feet. Joyce Allgaier responded the expectation was given because of the recommended changes, for example if the bridge itself were to change by two- stories that would have a significant impact on the site. Allgaier said there wasn't that much additional space on the site to take some from one part of the property and place it on the other without still yielding the same impacts that have been identified as being negative to the development. Allgaier said the staff expectation was that the square footage would drop as well as other things. Tygre inquired if conditional approval is granted on the 204,000 square feet does that giVe the applicant reliance on that number. Hoefer responded that it doesn't. Allgaier replied that a conceptual approval is only the indication to the applicants to proceed to the next step with the recommendations and conditions from P&Z; there were no entitlements by conceptual approval. Allgaier said those numbers were ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 'Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 the applicant's proposal. Vann stated that he didn't know what the changes would do to the number of units and FAR and so forth; if you want to put a disclaimer to satisfy these conditions that may result in a smaller building less units or less square footage or whatever, that was fine. Tygre stated concern for other conceptual approvals with representations taken as a legal reliance because they were specific numbers; she said that was a basic contradiction because it says 204,500 square feet is granted and on the other hand it says these changes will be made. Tygre said that one way or the other the commission has to know what the resolution really means and in her opinion it was unclear. Tygre quoted from the proposed resolution condition #4a The allowed height at the north property line shall be no more than one story taller than the adjacent condominiums; however it becomes slightly taller if it setback significantly from the north property line; she asked what was the rational for the one story. Woodford responded that it became evident during the review hearing that it would be more acceptable at an increase of one story in height. Tygre asked if that was intended as a maximum. Woodford replied that was correct. Haneman said that generally speaking the maximum that could' be expected from one property to another was a one-story increase in the height. ~ Tygre asked how the traffic mitigation plans were enforced especially with a change of ownership. Woodford answered the conditions follow the land and if the plans were not followed they would be in violation of their approval,which would be a zoning enforcement issue. Allgaier stated there were a number of circumstances where these things were in force; they were included in the ordinance, PUD and Subdivision agreements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Doug Allen, public, attorney for Lift One Condominium, said that he agreed with Jasmine on many things; he said it was premature to approve the resolution tonight because so many things were not clear. Allen said when the previous project for 31 units was approved for this site, the applicant met with the Lift One owners and worked some things out; there has not been an opportunity to do that with this applicant and requested P&Z to continue this review until these meetings were held for the neighbors. Allen said the staff memo and resolution were too vague. Allen noted the project was over 200,000 square feet in FAR and 300,000 square feet of total building mass and volume; the conditions that address the Lift One owners were not addressed in the resolution. Allen provided photos of a wreck that happened on the street this past weekend; he said that snowmelt was the only way to manage traffic on a road that steep, it may not have to be on the entire road and could be an improvement district required by the owner. Allen reiterated the things in the conditions were not specific. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 2. Galen Waldron, public, said that she represents Timberridge Homeowners Association, which was an association of 21 units. Waldron stated their objections to the resolution as it stands were as follows #1. despite the fact that they were here for the last meeting 'and made specific design related comments addressing parking issues, mitigation parking, height, density, massing and open space concerns, staff never mentioned Timberridge. Waldron said they would like before the approval 'was granted to have the developer sit down with Timberridge Homeowners and Lift One Homeowners to hear and address their concerns. Waldron said it was certainly premature to approve this tonight and asked why they do not get heard and demand to be heard; a 60-foot wall in front of them would directly affect 9 units. 3. Simon Finnegar, public, said he lived at Shadow Mountain Townhomes with 21 units; he said there has been no relief offered for the uphill neighbors with the building being proposed with a 2-foot 6-inch setback from their property line. Finnegar said their view plane was looking down and they should get whatever relief Lift One received. Finnegar said the copula was 72 feet high and would block the views without consideration. 4. Alex Beil, public, Shadow Mountain Condominiums, said that there was a complete rejection of public comment in the staff memo; there was no substantial reduction in size or height and nothing at the southern uphill end of the project. Beil urged the commission to turn this project down as it is presently described. 5. Colin Endacott, public, Lift One owner stated that he traveled 20 hours to get here for thiS meeting, which only reflects the amount of passion that they have for this particular development. Endacott said that he endorsed everything the public has said and the resolUtion seemed to be written by the applicant. Endacott said addressing condition #4a it could be slightly taller if set back seems to swing around with setting it back and pulling it up from his unit he will be looking straight into a wall, loosing all visual amenity. Endacott objected to the possible use of chemicals on the roadway. 6.. Alexandra Cain, public, Timberridge owner stated there were many year round residents; she was concerned about the light and the views. Cain wanted the letters that were submitted recognized from the people that couldn't be here because like Galen said their voice needed to be heard and not forgotten: 7. Chris Cox, public, Timberridge resident, said that Timberridge was not mentioned and they were a voice. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02~ 2004 8. Toni Kronberg, publ'ic, stated that she was not a neighbor or adjacent owner but supported the AACP and the main reason people come here is for the views. Kronberg spoke about the infill, Obermeyer, the Ambulance response for that street; she said because of the snowmelt it should be a summer only hotel. 9. Richard Spaulding, public, Southpoint owner, stated his disappointment with the developers not taking the initiative to sit down with the neighbors because so much could be resolved that way. Spaulding said many of the residents have development experience and it could be very constructive commentary reaching a resolution. 10. Joel Wugalter, public, Lift One owner, agreed with all the comments made; the impact on his unit will take the views and sunlight and will be looking at a wall. Wugalter said that with a multimillion-dollar project you would think that the developer would find out the impact on the community; the traffic mitigation does not include the employees. Tygre wanted to assure the members of the public that in addition to the vocalizations from the meetings; the commission has a ream of emails and letters submitted into the permanent record. Letters entered into the public record were from Timberridge owners Eric and Mimi Ruderman (2 letters), Rupert and Elizabeth Nitzchke, Meoni and Thomas Larkin, Heinze and Elaine Wolf, Memebrs of the Timberridge Association and Lift One owner, Nina Hawn Zale. Skadron voiced concern with the lack of specificity of the resolution as it pertains to the impacts on the height, Setbacks, bridge and traffic issues; he thought the hearing should be continued at this point. Johns said the first glance at the conditions were that they were very general in nature and didn't necessarily address the concerns and doesn't feel anymore secure about it and it makes sense for the developer to meet with the neighbors to come to some consensus. Johns said that he was not comfortable with the resolution as it was proposed. Haneman said that we could spend another 2 months on this and have it turn around at city council. Haneman said he knew what direction this should go and also that he would have another vote at that time. Haneman wanted to see what City Council would come up with and he wOuld use that as guidance for his next vote. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 200a Tygre stated concern for things that happen at conceptual' and get enacted into final through her years of P&Z experience. Tygre stated that there was a fairness issue, just as zoning depends on reliance; the applicants have a certain reliance on the judgments made by Planning & Zoning. Tygre said if she was not comfortable with certain items at conceptual by giving the applicant her direction and opinions, which were the conditions but did not give her enough of a comfort level; the applicant had direction of what was tolerable for this project. Tygre said she realized the neighbors wanted to meet with the applicant but that was not under the P&Z's control and was entirely up to the applicant's discretion to what extent they want to meet or not meet with the neighbors. Tygre stated the applicant had the option to request that a vote be taken tonight. Vann replied that with all due respect they would like to go onto Council after tonight; they have no problem talking to the. neighbors but they would not redesign this project at P&Z to get something the neighborhood and P&Z reached a consensus on and then start the process all over at Council. Vann said with a project of this complexity they gain the concerns of P&Z and the neighbors and find out to what extent they are shared with Council and then changes are made to obtain a conceptual approval; this process has been followed' for years and worked, ultimately City Council makes that decision. Vann said they know what the basic issues are: visual impact on the Lift One Condominiums;. they personally believe they have mitigated to a large extent the impacts on Timberridge with the changes suggested. Vann said the Shadow Mountain Condominiums with the exception of a couple of units that their views were not adversely impacted by this building, whether it's too close to their property line remains to be seen, it may end up 10 feet away as the project evolves. Vann said that at the next level of review they would be providing additional information to understand the extent of the impacts but would not continue at P&Z. Brooke Peterson said that on behalf of the developers and himself as a parmer in the project, they have heard the neighbors concerns; the original design of this hotel was bigger than what was proposed, which was driven by the potential operators. Peterson said that he had no problem taking out any reference to the 204,000 square feet or the number of units; he suggested requesting P&Z recommend approval for a multi-use project on this site. Peterson said they will work with the neighbOrs but prior to a P&Z recommendation sitting down with the neighbors will not result in anything more than we have now. Peterson said they have to get the design to where they think it will work for Council; what will be presented to Council will be a different project. Peterson said that he did not have a problem with an additional conditions with respect to working with Shadow Mountain; P&Z could help with the concept of the project and not the specifics. Peterson said that they have no reliance what P&Z did tonight except their recommendation for the project; the process is the process. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02~ 2004 Hoefer noted even if the vote fails the review process goes onto Council. Allgaier stated the conceptual approval was merely an indication to the applicant to proceed forward. Hoefer stated for clarity the conceptual basically indicates the general use, scale and orientation. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve Resolution #07, 2004for a Conceptual PUD.and Conceptual Timeshare for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain without condition #5 and adding Section g4 the dimensional density, use, parking and all other proposed PUD specifications in this application are not established or approved by this resolution. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Skadron, no; Johns, no; Haneman, yes,, Tygre, no. DENIED 3-1. Adjourned 7:05 pm. cie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13