HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050104ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-January 04, 2005
COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................... 2
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED PUD ............................................................................ 2
HIGHLANDS VILLAS 1NITIAL CITY ZONING .......................................................... 9
SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING ..... 10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting at 4:30 pm in the
Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron,
John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Jack
Johnson was excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney;
Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Brian Flynn,
Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brandon Marion voiced concern over the density in town this holiday season and
with the push for more, more, more in town he shuttered to think of all the projects
on line. Jasmine Tygre agreed with Brandon and wasn't sure of the role of P&Z
with the exception of long range planning.
Tygre stated that she couldn't understand why the city's new phone numbers didn't
transfer the old ones over and found it very frustrating and user-unfriendly.
Joyce Allgaier distributed the Impact Fee Report. Allgaier presented the date of
February 15th for the joint meeting with Council.
Minutes
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from November 16t~' and
November 30th; seconded by John Rowland second. All in favor, motion carried
4-0. (Tygre and Skadron abstained).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/07/04):
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Little Ajax Consolidated
PUD. James Lindt noted the packet contained the information requested such as
the chart for dimensional requirements in the R-15 zoning, AH and surrounding
buildings; the chart will provide the mass of the buildings on page 4 of the staff
memo.
Lindt stated the West Hopkins was converted to a pedestrian bikeway in 1990 with
the focus of keeping bicycles off of West Main Street. An exterior lighting plan
was included in the packet, which the zoning officer believes meets the code.
There were cost estimates for snow removal from this site, which comes out to be
about $35.00 a month per unit. Staff believed the project met the review standards
and recommend that P&Z approve the attached resolution. Lindt noted the change
to the resolution in Section 22, which added the exterior lighting, which meet the
city lighting code.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
Charlie Kaplan utilized drawings to illustrate the lighting plan with special
attention to the circulation areas such as stairs, which were recessed cans on
motion sensors. Kaplan said there would be a minimal amount of lighting on the
bridge piece and no lighting in the landscaping. Kaplan said there were essentially
· 2 windows in each of the units facing Hopkins with a minimal amount of light
coming out from there in the front; the glass was setback 5 feet in the living areas
from the face of the building. Kaplan said the glass was fairly transparent so the
building would not feel solid. Kaplan said the main area for storing snow would
be the center island and the perimeter along the driveway to the East and the snow
removal was based upon a comprehensive plan carting out snow 4-5 times a winter
to reduce the amount of snow in the storage areas.
Ruth Kruger asked if the snow storage was also the planter and how high was it.
Kaplan said them would only be a couple of trees in that planter and the plants will
be something that could be covered with snow and come back, possibly wild
grasses. Kaplan said that the planter was basically just a curb. Kaplan said the
walkways would be metal non-slip grates to let the snow filter through and the
areas in the slots would be a combination of metal grate and concrete, which would
be shoveled by hand (included in the cost estimates).
Brandon Marion said R-15 was the underlying zoning with a height limit of 25
feet; this project was proposed at 35 feet. Lindt responded that the R-15 Zone
District did not have requirements for a multi-family building; R-15 was for single-
family and duplexes, so there wasn't a good comparison. Lindt said the additional
fees for extra autos and the close proximity to the commercial core lends itself to a
reduction in the number of parking spaces. Lindt said the buildings in the area
were about 30 plus feet in height (chart on page 4 of the staffmemo); the 35 feet
proposed height for this building is stepped back and staff believed it fit into the
character of the neighborhood.
Public Comments:
1. Fonda Paterson, public, said one of the on going concerns was the snow
storage blocking access to the trail. Kaplan replied they were making plans for the
trail access. Paterson voiced concern for respecting the urban grid because when
mining claims become annexed into the city the rectilinear grid was not taken into
account with an alley and a street; she was concerned for the urban density on
mountain topography.
2. Martha Madsen, public, said her concern continues to be the automobile.
3. Fonda Paterson, public, agreed with Martha on the parking problems in the
neighborhood and West Hopkins was an amenity as a walkway and bikeway.
Paterson requested that no extra parking passes be issued by the city for street
parking for this project.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
Joe'Wells said the trail on the east side was intended to be a temporary trail until
the additional easements can be established to continue the trail further west to 7th
Street.
Lindt said there was a condition that required storm drainage to be contained on
site.
Marion said he supported the site for affordable housing but could not support the
project because (1) it was too tall for the site relative to the other properties and
Hopkins being was a trail and (2) the parking was inadequate.
Dylan Johns agreed this site was a great spot for affordable housing with the
Hopkins trail; the highest point of the building was off of the street before the
hillside starts climbing up and it is stepped down to two-stories at the street level
so it will not look any different than any other buildings on that street. Johns said
the character of the neighborhood was interesting with apartment buildings, the
Boomerang and the building at the mountainside was pushed closely to the bottom
of the hill. Johns said the variety of styles make Aspen what it is. Johns said it
might be nice to have more parking on site but it wasn't worth sacrificing the
feasibility of this project for parking. Johns considered it adequately parked right
now.
Kruger agreed with Dylan's comments and there was a great deal of density in that
neighborhood; the way the project backed up to Shadow Mountain the height was
appropriate. Kruger said most of the shade came from Shadow Mountain; these
buildings wouldn't overshadow the street as much as the Mountain did. Kruger
said that since this was on the bikeway and trail this would give employees the
opportunity to park their car and not drive to town. Kruger said it was a great trade
off to gain the open space parcel and trail. Kruger noted this (Hopkins) was a
street and should be used as a street and not a pedestrian way with a sidewalk; she
said the pedestrian way hinders traffic. Kruger said the diversity in architecture
with covered parking was good and the parking was adequate at 1½ spaces per
unit.
Steve Skadron said he liked the project but his primary point of contention was
maintaining Hopkins as a corridor of safe travel for pedestrians and bicycles.
John Rowland expressed that he was very happy with this design as an elegant
solution to a difficult site. Rowland said this project addressed the neighborhood
fantastically by holding its faqade from the street to break down the mass and
compliments the lodges in that neighborhood. Rowland said the project would not
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
impact the neighborhood. Rowland encouraged the temporary trail easement to be
maintained; minimizing roof penetrations and encouraged access to the roof.
Tygre stated the applicant has done a good job of presenting the smaller faqade on
the street and with Shadow Mountain behind the building it wasn't as concerning
to her that the building was 35 feet. Tygre said because of the open space of Lot 3
the FAR was no longer a concern. Tygre said the parking in her building and the
surrounding buildings were 4 bedroom units with 1 space on site; there was a
covered place to put your car on this project and people would find alternate means
of transportation so the parking was not of concern to her either. Tygre said her
pervious concerns have been answered and she felt favorable towards the project.
Marion asked if Lot 3 was contingent upon the annexation. Lindt replied it was a
separate deal; the pre-annexation agreement established the cost (at a discounted
price) and it was separate from this project even through the city had first right of
refusal and established the discounted price. Marion asked how many houses
could be placed on the property if this project did not go through. Wells replied 2
single-family houses at 4200 square feet each.
Kruger agreed that the trail easement should be maintained permanently. Wells
said it was not envisioned that the temporary trail would remain forever but only as
long as it takes to establish the trails on the upper portion of the property. Hoefer
noted it was Section 5 of the Resolution.
Brian Flynn said it was a challenge to come across the property to the west of this
project and they have an easement that takes the trail about 20% into that property
then disconnects; parks and open space were communicating with the owners of
that property, which was a step in the right direction and they were working
towards it.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #01, series 2005 with the
following conditions: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the Little Ajax Affordable Housing PUD and all of the necessary associated
land use actions, with the conditions contained herein: Section 2: Rezoning to AH/PUD:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310,
Amendments to. the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council hereby rezones
Lots 1 and 2, of the Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD to the AH/PUD Zone District. Section 3:
Subdivision/PUD Plat and Agreement:The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that
meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval.
Additionally, a final Subdivision/PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following: a) final
plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing: easements, encroachment
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
agreements and licenses (with the reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location
of utility pedestals, b) An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed
improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved, c. A
drawing representing the project's architectural character. Section 4: Building Permit
Application: The building permit application shall include the following: a. .4 copy of the final
Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover
page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks
Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or
mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a
detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on
the site. e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed
Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Ifa
ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size
the facility..4 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
f. .4 construction management plan pursuant to the requirements, g. A fugitive dust control
plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department Section 5: Trails:
The Applicant shall grant trail easements meeting the approval of the City of Aspen Parks
Department prior to recordation of the final subdivision/PUD plat. The temporary trail
easement shall remain in affect until such time as the City is able to secure trail easements on
properties located to the west in order to extend the Midland Trail to connect to S. Seventh
Street. Section 6: W. Hopkins Avenue Curb and Gutter The .4pplicant shall construct curb, and
gutter along the West Hopkins .4venue frontage of the property being subdivided prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the units in the project. The timing of this
installation may be changed if approved by the City Engineer. The driveway access shall meet
the City Engineering Department's standards for drive ramps. ]f the E. Hopkins Trail is altered
during construction, the Applicant shall repair the trail to the condition it was prior to
construction. Section 7: Landscaping: The Applicant shah install a tree root barrier on the
trees that are to be planted within ten (lO)feet of the E. Hopkins trail to prevent future root
damage and trail upheayal. The Applicant shall also instaii tree saving construction fences
around the drip line of any trees to be saved subject to the following provisions: a) The City
Forester or his/her designee must inspect this fence before any construction activities commence.
b) No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill,
foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip line. Section 8: Soil Subsidence and'
Rock Fall Hazards: The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed
by a qualified, licensed engineer demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed
development. The Applicant shall also submit a report from a qualified, licensed engineer
demonstrating that rock fall from the slope above the proposed development will be sufficiently
mitigated to prevent rock faii hazards. The Applicant shaii also contact a specialist to conduct a
geophysical investigation regarding the location of the mineshafi in order to determine the
potential for subsidence. This report shall be submitted for review by the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of fuii structural building permits. Section 9:
Mine Waste: The Applicant shaii provide prior to submitting a building permit application, the
City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that complies with the following conditions of
approval as memorialized in Ordinance No. 25, Series 1994 regarding the handling of any
contaminated soils encountered on the property: a) Any disturbed soil or material that is to be
stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or
other protective barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent
leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the excavated
material contains less than 1, O00 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a
satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be
disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized
receiving facility, b) Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid
waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the
site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and
disposal permits, c) Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the
creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air. d) lZegetable and flower
gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be planted or cultivated within the
boundaries of the site except in garden beds consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil
containing no more than 999-ppm lead e) Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and
the creation or installation of landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of
more than one cubic yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7-143 (4). JO Any
contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures or
pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be covered by a minimum of l
foot of clean soil that contains less than 1, O00ppm lead. Section 10: Septic System: In the event
that the Applicant encounters an existing septic system or any part thereof, the Applicant shall
provide a handling and waste disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health
Department requirements for the abandonment of said septic system. Section Il:Fire
Mitigation: The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshal. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to
accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. Use of charcoal grills shall be prohibited in
this development because of fire danger concerns. This prOhibition shall be included in the HOA
documents for the development. Section 12: k~ater Department Requirements: The Applicant
shall comply with the City of Aspen I~ater System Standards, with Title 25, and with the
applicable standards of Title 8 (14~ater Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen l~ater Department. The Applicant shall also
enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line
agreement. Each unit shall have individual water meters. Additionally, the Applicant shall tap
the water service line from the building into the six (6) inch diameter water main located in l;g..
Hopkins Avenue. Section 13: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements: The
Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations.
No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed.
The interior driveway and carport parking areas shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer
system. (Improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station). Cottonwood
trees shall not be planted within five (5)feet on either side of the main sewer line. Section 14:
"Efficient Building" Requirements: The Applicant shall obtain a score of at least 130points
under the Aspen/Pitkin County Efficient BuiMing Program. Such scoring shall be confirmed
through the review of construction drawings at the time of building permit application submittal.
A buildingpermit shall not be issued unless theproject meets this 130point score. Change
orders to the original building permit shall not reduce the projects score below 130points.
Section 15: PM-lO Mitigation: The Applicant shall mitigate for the anticipated PM-lO
generation by providing the following: a) The homeowner's association shall join the
Transportation Options Program. b) Secure, covered bike storage shall be provided, c) Basing
a portion of the homeowner's association dues on a sliding scale dependent on the number of
cars owned by an occupant. A homeowner with one car will pay 15% more in homeowner's
association dues than an owner with no cars. A homeowner with two cars will pay 25%0 more in
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
homeowner's association dues than an owner with no cars. d) Providing a temporary trail
easement along the eastern edge of the property to link the VE Hopkins Avenue Trail to the
Midland Trail as described in Section 5 of this resolution. Section 16: Maintenance of Rock Fall
Mitigation: The City shall grant an easement to benefit the Little Ajax Affordable Housing
Homeowner's Association at the time that the City purchases a conservation easement on Lot 3
of the Little Ajax Subdivision for the development of rockfall protection consisting of bruge
fencing and berms. Additionally, the City shall grant an access easement benefiting the Little
Ajax Affordable Housing Homeowner's Association across the southern portion of Lot 3for the
purpose of allowing the Homeowner's Association to complete routine maintenance on the
rockfall mitigation elements to be constructed on Lot 3. The Homeowner's Association shall be
responsible for maintaining the rockfall mitigation measures to be installed on Lot 3 of the
subdivision. Section 17: Dimensional Requirements:
The dimensional requirements established in this PUD are as follows:
Description of Dimensional Approved Dimensional Requirements
Requirement For the affordable housing
development (To be constructed on the
land known as Lots 1 & 2 of the Phase
1 Little Ajax Subdivision)
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot area per dwelling 1,000 SF for every 2-bedroom Unit
unit 1,500 SF for every 3-bedroom Unit
Minimum Lot Width 135 Feet
Minimum Front Yard (W. Hopkins Ten (10) Feet
Frontage) Setback
Minimum Side Yard Setback Five (5) Feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback Ten (10) Feet
Maximum Site Coverage 50% (13,050 Square Feet of Structure)
Maximum Height 35 Feet
Minimum Percent Open Space 28% of Lots 1 and 2 are not to be
covered w~ Structure
Allowable External FAR .94:1 (22,430 SF)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 1.56 Parking Spaces per Unit
Section 18: Sale of Housing Units: All of the units shah be sold through the Housing Lottery
process with the exception of one of the units. The developer shall have the ability to choose the
first purchaser of one of the units within the development, but the person chosen must meet all of
the top-priority requirements established in the affordable housing guidelines. If the person
chosen by the developer is single, they may only purchase the two-bedroom unit. Section 19:
Deed Restrictions: The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on the units prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 20: Park
Development Impact Fees: Park Development Impact Fees of $5 7,235. O0 shall be assessed.
Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit
shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current fee schedule:
Park Fees-Proposed Development: 15 (three-bedroom employee housing units) multiplied by
$3,634 per unit = $54,510:1 (two-bedroom employee housing uni0 multiplied by $2, 725per
unit = $2, 725: Total: $5 7,235. Section 21: School Land Dedication Fees: School Land
Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26. 630,
School Lands Dedication, and shall be due at the time of building permit issuance. The
Applicant shall have an appraisal done and the fee shall be calculated on Lots 1 and 2 of the
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-January 04, 2005
Subdivision prior to obtaining a building permit for any of the units within the development.
Section 22: Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shah meet the City's Lighting Code
Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 23:
Previous Approvals: Phase I Development Approvals to construct the single-family residences
on Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Ajax Subdivision shall be null and void upon recording a plat for the
Phase 2 development approvals. Section 24: Wildlife Trash Containers: The Applicant shall
install a wildlife-proof trash container meeting the requirements of the Environmental Health
Department. Section 25: The Applicant shall record a condominium plat when nearing
completion of the development. The condominium plat shall be reviewed administratively
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090, Condominiumization. Section 26: All material
representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal
approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity. Section 27: This resolution shall not effect any existing
litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or
by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be
conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 28: If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof. Seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Marion, no;
dohns, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes; approved 5-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HIGHLANDS VILLAS INITIAL CITY ZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Highland Villas initial zoning.
David Hoefer stated the notice was provided and the commission could proceed.
Chris Lee said this 2.57 acre lot was located at 98 Glen Dee Road, which consisted
of 3 buildings with 16 affordable housing units (Exhibit C - contained the
applicants names). Lee said this was right on the border o£the city boundary.
Lee said since this came from the county the city zoning that fit closely was RMF
- Residential Multi-Family.
Steve Skadron asked what benefits beside the voting process would these citizens
have. Lee responded that the county zoning was AH and this was already annexed
into the city (although this property was not annexed as of this date into the city).
The commission asked why not City Zoning AH - Affordable Housing. What
conditions were brought with the county AH zoning? What were the differences
between RMF and AH and development possibilities? What were the floor area
ratios between RMF and AH? What were the zone district dimensional
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
requirements? What are the building rights for RMF and AH? Could this property
add more housing or another building?
Joyce Allgaier said that RMF or AH would not allow any development without
P&Z approval. Lee said that this property abutted city zoned RMF property. Lee
said that the applicants wanted to do the build-out or expansion of their units on the
lower levels.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Highlands
Villas (Lot 1 O) Initial Zoning to January 18, 2005; seconded by Brandon Marion.
All in favor, approved 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that 2 affidavits of
public notice were provided and the proposed zoning map was available for the
public.
Chris Lee stated this was annexed into the city on 10/12/04, Ordinance #33, 2004
and this was initiated by the City of Aspen and owned by the city. This piece of
property was needed for the access road (Harmony Road). Exhibit B has a map
that shows the area, parcel 1 was the piece of property being zoned and parcel 2
was traded and will remain in, the county. Lee said the best zoning would be (C)
Conservation, which is what the rest of the adjoining property is zoned in the city.
The size of parcel 1 is .605 acre.
Public Comments:
Toni Kronberg, public, distributed pictures of the Burlingame Affordable Housing
property and the Zoline/BarX property. Kronberg stated this was not very simple
and asked if P&Z had seen this application prior to this hearing. They had not.
Tygre stated the commission was here to deal with the initial zoning for this .605
acre piece of land that has been annexed. Kronberg read from the state statute.
Hoefer stated that once this piece was annexed into the city it has to be city zoned.
Kronberg said that the zoning had to be somewhat consistent with what the county
zoning was; she read from the code regarding the conservation zone district's
purpose was for areas of low density development, recreation, to preserve natural
resources and contain urban development. Kronberg said this was not urban and
this parcel was where the road was leading. Kronberg said in her opinion the
commission's hands were tied and the road was worked on without a permit and
now they have a permit. Kronberg showed pictures stating this was the destruction
the road has done to this property.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-January 04, 2005
The commissioners agreed that (C) Conservation was the best city zone district
especially since the rest of the property was city zoned conservation. Kronberg
said that she was surprised that the Environmental Impact Study wasn't included in
the packet. Tygre stated there was no application before the commission just this
initial zoning. Kronberg disagreed with the staff findings and thought this should
be zoned open space.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #2, 2005 recommending
that the City Council approve the proposed zoning to allow for Parcel 1 of the
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch be zoned (C) Conservation with the Description -
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Annexation Parcel 1: A parcel of land situated in the
Southwest ~ of Section 2, Township 10 South, Range 85 l, Vest of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, said parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of the Burlingame Ranch as recorded in Plat Book 50 at
Page 88 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder whence the I'Vest ~ corner of
said Section 2 bears N64°14 '16"kV a distance of 878.38 feet with all bearings contained herein
being relative to a bearing of N04°41 'l g"E between the I~ ~ corner and the Northwest corner
of said Section 2; thence S86°29 '36"E along the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance
of I19.58 feet; thence S34°O4'47"If a distance of 4.13 feet to the northeasterly corner of a
parcel of land described on page 16 of Reception g497592; thence along the easterly boundary
of said parcel of land the following two (2) courses, thence S13°54 '40 "kV a distance of 403.00
feet; thence S26°19 '05 "I'V a distance of 27.92 feet to a point on said Burlingame Ranch
boundary; thence NO1 °02 '37"kV along the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of
427. 02feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 26,366 square feet or O. 605 acres, more
or less. Seconded by Dylan dohns. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; dohns, yes;
Marion, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes; approved 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
~{ckie Lothian, ~)eputy City Clerk
11